Jesus’ Resurrection on Easter morning is the focal point of Christian apologetics. As the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians:

“For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. … For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.” (1 Corinthians 15:16-17, 19 NET)

From this, he concludes:

“If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Corinthians 15:32 NET)

And, while that’s not all I might be doing, I certainly wouldn’t be writing Christian apologetics articles!

Collection of previous series on the Resurrection of Jesus

Over the last few years, I wrote a series of articles on the Resurrection. I thought this might be an appropriate time and place to gather them all here.

And, just in case your church doesn’t have enough excellent Easter music, (and even if they do) you can check out one of my favorite contemporary hymns, which is certainly appropriate for the occasion, or just about any day of worship!

Another look at the evidence for the Resurrection

In my last post about the recent Apologetics Canada Conference 2016, I told you about case-maker (a.k.a. Christian apologist) J Warner Wallace. So, for a bit(1)understatement of the century! You’ll be blown away. of new material to add to my articles above, I’d like to share his presentation on the Resurrection. (Also, if you’re in eastern Canada, the conference is still upcoming in April, and you can buy access to a digital version of the conference if you weren’t/aren’t able to attend.)

But one of the main reasons I’m bummed is that one of my favorite Christian apologists is going to make his 3rd appearance at this year’s conference!

J. Warner Wallace

If you haven’t had the pleasure of meeting Jim, you’re really missing out. And, if you haven’t heard him give one of his presentations, immediately put that on your todo list, whether in person at the conference, or by viewing one of his YouTube videos. (Actually, just go watch it, as this is the presentation you may have missed two years ago.)

I first ‘met’ Jim back in early 2010 after I had been listening to his podcast and checking out his excellent collection of resources over at Please Convince Me. I really liked the intro/outro music he was using for the podcast and reached out to Jim, asking who the band was. This started a bit of conversation between us, as I had pointed out the very meager start of my own apologetics ministry website. (The band was Apt Core, in case you’re curious.)

What I admired about Jim, was how carefully he addressed issues and how fair he was to opposing points of view, and/or kind to opponents he had as guests on his podcast. The depth of his research, even down into original sources, was impressive, especially given he was working full-time as well as leading a house-church. And the approach he used to Christian apologetics – given his background in cold case homicide investigation – was something quite unique. I had to know more.

Two worlds collide – in a good way!

I also happened to be in graduate school/seminary at the time at Regent College in Vancouver, BC, Canada. So, when I learned that there was going to be a local apologetics conference, I was pretty excited. I made contact and attended the conference, where I met Andy Steiger, the director of Apologetics Canada. The first conference went even better than expected… they actually had to turn away people lined up to buy tickets at the door, due to fire codes. To see that kind of turnout, as someone studying Christian apologetics, had me overjoyed!

Andy expressed interest in learning more about what I was working on with TilledSoil, so we arranged to meet for coffee soon after the conference. During our chat, he asked if I knew of any interesting Christian apologists. I quickly thought of Jim, as well as Mary Jo Sharp, as people I’d run across who I thought would be very interesting to bring up to the conference in the coming years.

Imagine how thrilled I was when when I learned that the second Apologetics Canada Conference would be featuring both J Warner Wallace and Mary Jo Sharp, along with Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. Paul Copan. That’s an impressive lineup, and Jim hit it out of the park with his keynote.

But, not only that, Jim spent a great deal of time hanging out with everyone who volunteered to work the conference. He ate lunch with us, he prayed with us, he sat at the merchandise tables and got to know us, as we got to know him. He even helped setup, and if I recall, tear down. And while I would NOT want to tangle with him in a dark alley (even a well lit one!) – with the best of my spidey sense in operation – he’s one of the nicest, most genuine guys you’d want to meet. I’m honored to call him a friend, even though our time of interaction has been quite limited.

He is someone you definitely don’t want to miss, either in person or at least by familiarizing yourself with his great body of work. You can find out more about Jim by visiting his website, Cold Case Christianity.

Also check out this recent interview of J. Warner Wallace, “Accidental vs. Evidential Faith,” w/ Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason (another person and ministry you should become familiar with).

And, if you have children… or know any

If you have kids, or know any kids, there is another very important reason you should be at Apologetics Canada Conference 2016, or at least check out another of this year’s speakers.

Natasha Crain

Natasha is a Christian parenting blogger and author who I was very glad to see listed on this years’ conference roster. I ran across Natasha’s blog, Christian Mom Thoughts a while back and interacted a bit in the comments. Since signing up for her newsletter and keeping track of her blog a bit, her heart for our kids and a wealth of apologetic parenting advice has become very evident.

This is not my area of expertise, and it is an extremely underserved area of ministry. Most Christian apologists focus on high-school through college ages and adults. But, we absolutely need to start educating our children in Christian apologetics at a much earlier age. Natasha is very specially gifted to help us, as both apologists and parents, in this endeavor.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-conference-2016-near-vancouver-bc-week/feed/0Happy Christmas – New Year goals – appeal for supporthttp://www.tilledsoil.org/happy-christmas-new-year-goals-appeal-for-support/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/happy-christmas-new-year-goals-appeal-for-support/#respondFri, 25 Dec 2015 10:53:59 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=946Happy Christmas from TilledSoil - a look at what is coming in the New Year - an appeal for support.

As we Christians celebrate the significance of the incarnation – Jesus’ birth, God with us – I wanted to pass along Christmas greetings and cheer on behalf of TilledSoil.

And the government will be on his shoulders…

This Christmas season, I’ve been too preoccupied with personal and worldly affairs to really feel prepared. In part, the chaos and lunacy of world events, political races, and seeming complete loss of rational thought in the surrounding world, have been a distraction, to say the least.

Sometimes, we catch something we need, just at the right time. I was listening to a podcast the other day, when Isaiah 9:6 was mentioned. Most of us know this verse by heart:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (KJV)

I’ve heard this verse hundreds of times. What gave me pause this time was the phrase, “and the government shall be upon his shoulder.” The speaker on the podcast mentioned this verse in regard to Jesus’ authority over the world, and the coming Kingdom of God.

You see, for some odd reason, I had heard that phrase more in terms of Jesus being under the weight and persecution of government and religious officials during his earthly ministry. I don’t know where that came from, but it made sense in light of what Jesus faced in opposition. I had never done an actual study on that verse, and somehow that was stuck in my mind. The problem is, that’s not a very good interpretation! And worse, it misses the comfort we need this time of the year in the midst of a crazy world.

It’s always a good practice (especially for people who aren’t proficient in the original languages) to take a look at a few different translations.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (NIV)

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (NET)

For a child has been born—for us! the gift of a son—for us! He’ll take over the running of the world. His names will be: Amazing Counselor, Strong God, Eternal Father, Prince of Wholeness. (The Message)

Ahh, now it is starting to make more sense.

Spoiler alert… Jesus reigns

This passage is telling us something more along the lines of the spoiler in Revelation; Jesus wins in the end. He has ushered a new governance into the universe, His governance! In ancient times, while governing was seen as a burden, to be borne on one’s shoulders, there were also signs and symbols of the ruling authority worn on the shoulders. This is actually a phrase alerting us that the coming Messiah would also be King.

It is too easy to forget this aspect of the babe in the manger, especially when life seems chaotic. While earthly kingdoms and governments will come and go, Jesus is in charge, always and forever!

I hope this helps you find comfort this Christmas season, no matter what is going on in your personal life or the world around you. It has for me. (Now, I’m going to crawl under some exegetical rock out of embarrassment for not picking up on that all these years!)

A look toward the New Year

As you may have noticed, things have been a bit quiet around TilledSoil.org lately. I’ve been preoccupied with things like… trying to make a living.

I’ve been greatly missing my absence, too. Working in Christian apologetics is good for my soul. I have tons of article ideas, a stack of books to review, and if that isn’t enough, I’m going to try very hard to launch a Christian apologetics podcast early-to-mid 2016. I’d also love to finish a curriculum I started a few years ago. That latter one is probably a bit too ambitious for 2016, but I can dream, can’t I?

The website will be getting a makeover with a new theme which is much more capable for future plans (and will better support a podcast). It should make publishing new content easier and more fun, which should help the goal of producing content on a more consistent basis.

Which brings me to…

An appeal for support

I’d love to have a lot more time to create content for TilledSoil. Up until now, I’ve done most of what you see here (as well as a lot you don’t see here) out of love for Christian apologetics, and to play my part in Christian evangelism.

But, realities of life have forced me to put less and less time into this ministry, and more into things that make a living. We can tilt that balance back in this direction, but I need your help!

To that end, I have set up a Patreon account and page to raise funds to keep this ministry going… and hopefully growing! I’d love to put much more of my time, if not all, into this effort. Ultimately, I’d like to be able to replicate the local aspect of the model, and establish trained Christian apologists in various geographical areas to support local churches. That’s my dream, but I can’t do it alone.

Patreon is a service that makes it easy for patrons to pay each time content is produced, or setup a monthly subscription. I’m asking for monthly support at this point, though Patreon will allow for a lot of fund-raising flexibility as we grow. And, you can start with as low as $1/month or as much as you like.

I’ve heard you don’t get, if you don’t ask… so I’m asking. Just click the Patreon logo below. Thank you in advance!

Note: If you would rather make a one-time donation, please contact us, but consistent monthly support is preferred, as it gives us a better measure of where we’re at. We also currently do not have non-profit or charity status, so any donations, while greatly appreciated, will not be tax deductible.(1)Gaining such status is expensive, complex, and time-consuming. We welcome input, but we’re also not sure such status won’t be a burden in the coming years, given the direction of our society.

]]>I will be speaking at the Science and Faith Symposium in Prince George BC Canada on the topic: Creation vs Evolution: 4 views.

This event will be held on Sunday evening, June 7th from 7-9 pm at Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church in Prince George, BC Canada. Please see OSLC’s website for details or contact information. The cost for the event is free, and I’ll be joined by two other speakers, Art Betke on Limits to Evolution, and John MacDonell on Evolution Revolution.

The primary purpose for this event is to get people discussing this important topic. The speakers will present an overview of the various positions, discuss how to think about such topics in a clear and compassionate manner, and present opposing views on the subject (i.e.: one creationist point of view and one evolutionist point of view).

If you are in or around the Prince George, BC, Canada area, TilledSoil.org encourages you to attend, as we’ve been promoting this topic as an important subject to discuss in our churches. Often, because the issue can be divisive, it is avoided. We don’t believe ‘sweeping disagreement under the rug’ is healthy in any kind of relationship, let alone the church body or the relationship between church and culture.

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins | on Amazon.ca
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins | on Amazon.ca

My Journey (quotes and info)

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p4
– so, maybe the appearance of having been designed for a purpose is evidence it has been?

What direction is the research moving?
Who is actually holding up science?
Does the person who is correct need to suppress other views?

Vestiges of evolution…

Scopes trial in 1925, argument was given that there were over 180 vestigial organs and structures in the human body. Now, scientists are wary of talking about vestigial organs at all. (ex: tonsils, tail-bone, thyroid, appendix.)

“What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make up a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene – a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.
…
Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.”
Dawkins 2009 book The Greatest Show on Earth

“Even more compelling evidence for a common ancestor comes from the study of what is known as ancient repetitive elements (AREs). … Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs, with roughly 45% of the human genome made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam. … Of course, some might argue that there are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting them as ‘junk DNA’ just betrays our current level of ignorance.”
Francis Collins, The Language of God, p135-136

The result:
“Although very catchy, the term ‘junk DNA’ repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years. After all, who would like to dig through genomic garbage? Thankfully, though, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories.”Scientific American “What is junk DNA, and what is it worth?”

OEC models predicted function would be found, and just a couple years later, ENCODE project showed over 80% function and growing.

YEC to OEC, but stopped before TE (my path)

when I was growing up, YEC was the ‘official’ position of my church

began to get pushed on this when starting in apologetics discussion

discovered Hugh Ross’ ministry and found it very compelling

was heavily encouraged to switch to Theistic Evolution in seminary

but, I found the arguments of RtB and ID folks more compelling

and, was really disappointed that, at the time, the TE camp hadn’t done their theology!

While I respect science, I’m not bothered by disagreeing with the current neo-Darwinian consensus.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/science-and-faith-symposium-in-prince-george-bc-canada/feed/0Identity Crisis: Should We Use the Term Apologetics?http://www.tilledsoil.org/identity-crisis-use-term-apologetics/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/identity-crisis-use-term-apologetics/#respondThu, 13 Nov 2014 22:04:56 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=909Do you get blank stares when you mention apologetics? Should we find a new term? A look at how to help people understand us and build community.

]]>Do you get blank stares when you mention apologetics? Should we drop the term and find another, like case-maker? Having tried apologetics as well as other terms, I think the problem is deeper. What can we do, and what might we learn from others who share a similar identity problem?

Should we find a new term?

I’m not inherently opposed to replacing the term. Apologetics is derived from a Biblical Greek word used convey making a legal defense for a point of view (in this case our Christian faith). But, I don’t think it is important we insisting on it (like we might for terms such as justification, propitiation, or atonement). (1)Yes, I do think it is important we teach such terms, as something is always lost when we start substituting. In other words, it isn’t a term that is particularly unique or important in its own right.

I’ve tried J. Warner Wallace’s suggestion of the term, ‘case-making.’ The problem is that I usually get similar blank stares. I’ve tried using the definition of ‘defending’ or ‘making a defense for’ Christianity. This sometimes results in a blank stare coupled with a negative reaction. I suppose defense seems a bit more militant.

In many cases, confusion concerning apologetics isn’t a matter of difficult terminology, but of a struggle to fit the concept into a particular understanding of Christianity.

If I were an endocrinologist, I’d probably have to explain that term at dinner parties. But, once I told them I was a doctor who worked with the body’s system of hormones, and had patients with diabetes or metabolic disorders, they would be on-board. And, while they would be far from understanding the details, they would be unlikely to react in a, “why would you do that?” kind of way (which is often a reaction I experience to apologetics).

Another identity problem being overcome

Podcasters share a similar problem. Mentioning podcast to many also returns a blank stare. Some have suggested Internet radio, others Internet streaming audio, or ‘Net-cast.’ The problem is that these are longer, more technical, or suggest their own definitional problems which then require explanation and correction. And when people do start to understand what a podcast is, images of Steve Job’s ‘amateur hour’ quip might come to mind. It takes a bit of explanation and promotion before people start to see the true benefits and appreciate podcasting.

For example, while a podcast is delivered via the Internet, one of the best aspects is that you don’t have to be connected to the Internet to listen to one. You can listen at your own convenience, often while doing other things like commuting or cleaning the house. And, while ‘amateur hour’ is sometimes a problem, podcasting is rather unique in focusing on niche interests, often at a very in-depth level. It’s a bit like Internet radio, but that doesn’t really capture the unique benefits.

In other words, feel free to use other terminology to describe podcasting (or apologetics), but don’t expect that to be enough, or initially even help much. You’re going to have to teach, explain, and defend the CONCEPT behind them and explain why someone should care.

What can apologists learn from podcasters?

A few occurrences got me reflecting on this correlation between apologetics and podcasting (and writing an article on the topic). First, we podcasters (or aspiring podcasters in my case, and podcast fans) recently celebrated National Podcast Day on September 30th. It was established to raise awareness of podcasting and help educate people about what podcasting entails. Next year, it’s going to be rebranded International Podcast Day for obvious reasons – there is nothing national about it!

Second, I heard Cliff Ravesnscraft (aka. the Podcast Answer Man) talk about this topic a while back (including relating the issue to seeker-sensitive churches failed attempts at avoiding big terminology). He takes the tact of using the terms and teaching people through explanation and example to encourage the link in their mind. (16:23 ~ 23-15 min.)

Third, I recently wrote an article about why businesses should consider podcasting, and I’ll probably write a similar one on why Christian apologists should do the same! While some of the motives can be different, podcasting is an incredible opportunity apologists shouldn’t miss. You might say I’ve become an apologist of podcasting in addition to Christianity.

Essentially, I’ve become convicted concerning the value of educating people about podcasting and the approach that community is taking. I’ll teach people what the term means, what the benefits are, and help raise awareness. I think we can (and need to) do the same with Christian apologetics.

To change or not to change (the term)

I’m reaching to a similar conclusion in terms of Christian apologetics. Why should we drop a term that is centuries old with a rich history? The problem, as I see it, isn’t that people can’t learn to grasp a complex term. People use complex terms every day in their jobs and other duties. The problem is more one of apathy and misunderstanding.

The average Christian doesn’t respond with a blank stare because the term apologetics is too complex, but because even upon grasping the meaning of the term, they often (at least initially) find the concept irrelevant. Why would someone defend or make a case for Christianity? (They think or express.) Isn’t that kind of last-century modernism? (2)No, they don’t use that language, but given the influence of postmodernity, relativism, and multi-cultural diversity/inclusivism, that is essentially what they are saying. Isn’t defending Christianity a bit impolite even if it can be rationally justified? Why not just take it all on faith? These are the messages I most often read from the blank stares and conversations that follow.

Focus on our identity and history

We face a tough battle. As I pointed out, the problem isn’t a term. It is the cancer of apathy within our churches and culture, consuming the rich historical place for apologetics alongside theology, community, the sacraments, etc. Not unlike the Reformation period, we face an apathetic church, attempting to placate diminishing masses with modern-day smells and bells (or sometimes real ones).

The reasons for this are many, but I think we should keep in mind the relationship between apathy and anxiety. Apathy is often a symptom of anxiety. It is especially common in people (or people groups) who experience a big set-back. Social pressure around controversial topics, nervousness about a perceived strain between faith and science, and cultural relativism are just a few factors creating a lot of spiritual anxiety. When we’re not aware of the strengths of Christianity or answers to those challenges, I think we often turn inward (for protection) and become apathetic.

As with the risk of dropping a term like podcasting, we Christian apologists risk diluting a powerful term and identity with a rich history. (3)Yes, this history is short in podcasting, but ‘podcasting’ (term-wise) is the hub of that community. It’s an anchor point from which to build. In my opinion, we’re better off rallying around the term apologetics – educating, doing PR, promoting – all in a consolidated effort.

So, what is apologetics?

This is a great continuing discussion within our community. I’ve tried a number of tactics depending on the person I’m speaking with.

If the person is unaware of the term apologetics, I’ll often explain that it addresses why someone should believe Christianity rather than, say, Buddhism, Islam, or Atheism. Just be prepared, as many have never considered such a question and often look at me like I have just committed some kind of logical category error. I get the, “DOES NOT COMPUTE!” look.

If the person has a strong church background or theological training, I might explain that apologetics addresses the ‘why believe’ similar to how theology addresses the ‘what is believed.’ They typically understand, but also sometimes still give me a puzzled look.

If either of those approaches dead-end, I often try to think of some apologetics example to illustrate. This is challenging to do on the fly, as you want to try and find an example which will best resonate with the individual. Having a few on-hand and practiced is quite helpful. That way, if you can’t think of a custom tailored example, you have something to fall back on.

Here are a few:

If your God is such a good God, why did He cause/allow X?

I recently heard Jesus didn’t even exist.

Why do you believe the Bible? It’s just an ancient book of myths.

I don’t want to be associated with people who hate homosexuals.

Science has done a lot for me. I won’t join up with science deniers.

.

Basically, find something you think they might care about (even better if it is also a hot cultural topic), and turn it into an objection to Christianity. That should make them see the importance of addressing it. This provides a real-world example of Christian apologetics.

Conclusion

Feel free to use whatever term you find works best. However, I’d like to suggest that we not abandon ‘apologetics’ because it isn’t the actual problem and has a rich history. And much more important, like with podcasting, is the common identity for the community to rally around and promote. Having a strong, unique term is helpful to that end.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/identity-crisis-use-term-apologetics/feed/0Why should I believe something?http://www.tilledsoil.org/believe-something/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/believe-something/#commentsWed, 16 Jul 2014 02:09:06 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=875Why do people - even those of high intellect and good intention - disagree so often? Who should we believe? Better, why should we believe something?

]]>People believe all sorts of things. Some believe in aliens, while others don’t. Some believe in global warming, while others don’t. Some believe in evolution, while other’s don’t. Some believe in a God or gods, while others do not. Why the disagreement, given there are certainly people of good intention and intellect on either side of many important issues? Why should we believe something?

A fundamental challenge (and a proper one!) you will encounter the moment you begin your evangelistic efforts, is the question of why you believe a particular thing to be the case. (1)This isn’t just true in the case of religion, by the way. ‘Evangelize’ for something like organic food, or why a Mac is better than a PC, and see what happens. For example, just the other day I was challenged concerning why I believe the Bible rather than the myriad other religious texts. And while the question is often posed in a mocking way, it is actually a great question. Christian apologists such as Greg Koukl in his book, Tactics, recommend we (Christians) start doing more such asking of our own.

But, before we look at the reasons people do believe things, it might be helpful to consider reasons they might not. It is often said that there are three fundamental reasons people reject Christianity. I think this typically applies in general.

Intellectual

This reason for rejecting a position rests on the data, or at least the person’s perception or interpretation of the data. It doesn’t mean they understand the facts correctly, but that are grounding their decision in this manner. This would be the claim of most atheists as to why they reject Christianity.

A person might reject the idea of aliens, for example, if they understand fine-tuning principals and astrophysics. Or, they might reject global warming because they just experienced a really cold winter. (Note: in this last example, the interpretation of the data and reasoning is in error, but the rejection falls into the intellectual category.)

Emotional

An emotional rejection occurs when the reason for the decision is based in a person’s experience and reaction, rather than a proper intellectual analysis. As above, their position could be correct or in error. In our Christian context, this might be the person who rejects Christianity because they were abused by a Christian leader.

A person might reject global warming because they don’t trust environmentalists. Or, maybe they reject Islam because they know someone who was killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Volitional (will) or Moral

A volitional rejection occurs when what a person wills overrides the intellectual analysis. Again, this doesn’t necessarily make the decision to be in error. Someone who loves dark-chocolate covered coffee beans, and selects them over jelly beans, might reap health benefits in the process with no knowledge of nutrition or scientific studies. Someone might reject Christianity because they don’t like the impact on their lifestyle. Or, a person might reject global warming because they don’t want to give up their SUV.

I hope it is easy to see why emotional and volitional reasons for believing something can be problematic. However, it is important to keep these in mind. If they are the reasons, the intellectual will almost always be overridden.

Reasons people believe things

Societal

The grounding for this reason is in what one is taught by the common knowledge of the society in which they live (aka. conventional wisdom). It is influenced by many factors which may or may not have credibility. For example, that going out into the cold with a wet head makes you sick. Or, that a Twinkie has an infinite shelf-life. That said, conventional wisdom is often quite good, it just isn’t the correct basis on which to believe something.

Authority

The grounding for this reason is what someone in a position of authority might tell you, such as parents or teachers. Maybe your parents stressed that if you fall in the water and stay under too long you might drown. Whether or not you’ve ever been swimming, or studied the effects of water on human lungs, this would probably be a good thing to believe.

However, maybe a teacher taught you that the Miller-Urey experiment (the one with the glass apparatus containing water and gases where electrical discharge produced amino acids) showed how life could have started on the early earth. While that teacher had good intentions, it might be wise to be a bit skeptical. Authority can be (and usually is) a great reason to believe something. Most of what we know relies on this principal.

Psychological

This is a type of grounding that is based on your psychological state or feelings. Examples would be things you believe because they give you comfort or hope. Maybe you believe someone isn’t lying to you because they are pleasant to be around. I think it is pretty easy to see how such a grounding could be in error. But, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily in error.

Religious

This type of grounding shares much in common with authority above. However, it goes a bit beyond this with the inclusion of supernatural involvement. For example, if a particular scripture is revealed by deity, then it would at least have the potential for a higher level of knowledge and accuracy. If the religion is false, this grounding could be wildly unreliable. However, if the religion is true, this grounding would be better than anything we have access to. We can be mistaken, even in our perception of reality. God, as defined by Christianity, or even classical theism, has all knowledge and can’t lie, so would be the only 100% reliable source of information.

Philosophical

This type of grounding is based on a correspondence of beliefs and facts. It is, in fact, called the Correspondence Theory of Truth. As J.P. Moreland put it:

“In its simplest form, the correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case. … Grass’s being green makes Sally’s thought true even if Sally is blind and cannot tell whether or not it is true, and even if Sally does not believe the thought. Reality makes thoughts true or false. A thought is not made true by someone believing it or by someone being able to determine whether or not it is true.” (2)Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn by Dr. J.P. Moreland.

While this Correspondence Theory might seem obvious, it is important to note how this differs from the others. While the others might be grounded in reality, they don’t have to be. In other words, they could be correct, but they might not be.

So, why believe something?

Because it is true! That’s the only good reason.

“But wait,” the Christian might say, what about the Bible? Yes, the Bible is a special case, but not for the reason some might assume. Making the argument for why this is the case is beyond the scope of this article, but let’s just say that, “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it,” doesn’t quite cut it!

We’re warned over and over in Scripture to test the spirits, (3)1 John 4:1 and in fact to test everything. (4)1 Thes 5:20 The Apostle Paul spent years carefully checking out the claims of Christianity, and the Berean Jews were commended for examining the Christian testimony carefully. (5)Acts 17:10-11 Even Jesus pointed at miracles, (6)John 10:38 and responded to John the Baptists doubts by pointing at prophecy. (7)Matt 11:2-5 In fact, Old Testament prophecy is indicated as a marker for knowing the true God, as false Gods aren’t able to know the future. (8)Isa 41:21-23 Romans 1 tells us that we’re all without excuse because God is plainly revealed by the world and universe around us. (9)Rom 1:20 And, don’t forget, our arch-rival Satan is said to appear as an ‘angel of light’ and not the red-dude with a pitch-fork! (10)2 Cor 11:13-15

When someone asks you why you believe something, especially Christianity, your first answer should be, “because it is true.” Then, back that up by presenting the case from Scripture and evidence.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/believe-something/feed/2Church in crisis: a message every Christian needs to hearhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/church-crisis-message-every-christian-needs-hear/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/church-crisis-message-every-christian-needs-hear/#respondMon, 19 May 2014 20:38:33 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=863Why is the church in crisis? How did we get here and how do we fix it? Find out what EVERY Christian needs to hear and act on.

]]>It isn’t much of a secret anymore that the church in the West is in crisis. If you haven’t read one of the many church-produced or sociological studies, you’ve probably noticed it just by watching the news or looking around at society. But why is this the case? How did we get here and, more importantly, how do we fix it?

Since the resource to which I’m pointing is so good, and the notes I’ve taken from it are so long, I’m just going to jump into it and let it speak for itself. (Also note that it is the first in an ongoing series! So far the rest are just as good.) I apologize in advance for the ‘class notes’ type format.

Please take the time to listen to the episode audio (or podcast). It is less than 55 minutes long, but if you are really pressed for time, at least listen to the first 17 minutes and read my summary of Christian Smith’s closing below, or listen to minutes 49:08-52:12. If you can’t listen to it, browse my notes below.

Youth Ministry in Crisis

Mike Horton (1:11-7:30)

Christians aren’t reproducing. Not that they aren’t having children, but they aren’t producing Christian children; they aren’t passing on the faith.

the statistics are staggering (I’ll include a few, but Mike covers many more)

‘no religion’ box was 7% 5 years ago, now 15%

more than 1/3 of 18-22 year olds say they don’t identify with any religion

Southern Baptist Convention initial studies: losing 70-80% of youth after Freshman year of college

a more recent SBC report found that 88% of those raised in Evangelical homes leave church at age 18

other studies in-between have ranged from 61%-90%

while there are various causes, the glaring one is the ‘diet’ youth are getting, even in more conservative contexts

Barna group study: 63% of US teens don’t believe Jesus is the son of God; 58% believe all faiths teach equally valid truths; 51% don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead

Christian Smith group, 2000 to present, surveyed over 3000 teens and followed them into their 20s: youth incredibly inarticulate about their faith

David Kinnaman of Barna: youth ministry simply fails at discipleship and faith formation

you can’t hand something on without teaching it and knowing the words and terms

Marva Dawn of Regent College (23:25-28:07)

youth in her church were learning ‘how Christianity helps us grow up’ which was stuff like ‘I need comfort when I break up with my boyfriend, etc.’

real danger in turning Christianity into another form of narcissism

they need to know about the Triune God, why God is involved in our lives, about the Crucifixion and why it is important

they had very little doctrinal content

this is dangerous, as if it is just feelings holding them to Christianity, when the feelings aren’t there, they will move away

she is very concerned about generation split in churches today

our faith is language more than emotion

people should be drawn into a different way of life, a focus on God, worshiping God, rather than their own fun and entertainment

Thomas Bergler (28:30-35:02)

traces history and development of youth culture and effect on models of youth ministry

instead of encouraging kids to grow up in Christ, they were placed in their own alternative church, until the whole church became one giant youth-group

adolescence invented in society around the 1940s

before this, early teens were entering the world of adult work

teenager was coined in the 1930s-40s, which was the first time in history when the majority of American teens went to high school

birth of teenagers as a consumer market

age group with distinct language (slang) and pop culture

negative impact of youth ministry, is taking traits that are appropriate to the youth age, become the ideal for all ages – ex: analogy of falling in love, applied to the faith (if I’m not feeling intense emotions towards Jesus, then something is wrong… and this ends up having all the staying power of adolescent infatuation.)

Evangelicals captured a lot of youth, but what did they capture them with, and is it mature Christianity?

J.I. Packer (35:20-41:56)

we need to reconsider catechism techniques

Christianity is a faith which expresses itself as a life

you can’t teach the life properly if you don’t teach the faith properly

to get the believing straight, you need the basic grammar of the faith

Jesus said, go make disciples; a disciple is a learner

the basic trouble in the West, is that we’ve exchanged a God centered view of life, for a man-centered, self-centered, relativistic view of life, truth, and wisdom

Christianity gets distorted, because we treat ourselves as the central focus, and God is just there to help when we need him

catechism isn’t necessarily ‘fun’ but it is very satisfying to the mind and heart

head knowledge is the highway to heart knowledge – you don’t have heart knowledge without head knowledge – truth enters the heart via understanding

this makes you want to worship and praise God – if you start on the other end, you end up with relativism

Gary Parrett (41:56-45:38)

in the ancient church, anyone coming to Christ went through a rigorous training in Christian doctrine in prep for baptism, even up to 2 or 3 years; catechesis

unintended consequences of the Sunday-school movement, where people learned snippets of various Bible stories, but never connected them to the whole

in some cases, the stories were presented in a way that is contrary to the Gospel

Sunday-school movement was a lay movement, which was originally an evangelism and outreach effort, which became the children educational wing of the church

outcome was for parents and pastors to withdraw from the education of children

William Willimon (45:38-49:08)

Christian discipleship should be similar to learning a different language

you have to sit and learn the language

if you went into a physics class and the instructor started talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the student wouldn’t go, ‘hold on, you can’t use terms like that, put that into some language I know.’ The teacher would say, ‘well you’d better write this definition down and learn about it, because it is going to be on the exam.’

as Christians, we need to get a whole bunch of terms and concepts which we didn’t have before we were saved

Christian Smith, Director of the National Study of Youth and Religion (49:08-52:12)

“The single factor that clearly drove how articulate a young person could be about their faith, was not how mature they were, what their age was, but whether the adults in their lives had engaged them, had taught them, had formed them, had given them a vocabulary and a language of faith to use.” (emphasis mine)

“A thirteen year-old who had that in their life could be as articulate as anything. A seventeen, eighteen year-old who hadn’t had that could be just completely lost. We also found that young people weren’t generally inarticulate. They could be articulate on topics where their schools, or a program they had been in, where their teachers had basically communicated to them, ‘this is important,’ ‘you need to know this,’ ‘this is not negotiable.’” (emphasis mine)

The language of faith is like a second language. It’s hard to learn it, you don’t just pick it up. It takes a sustained learning.

It’s going to have to happen in our families and churches, as it won’t happen on TV or in most schools.

While we’re focused on teens, his suspicion is that their parents wouldn’t be much more articulate.

When there is a community, family, or congregation that is serious and values something, the young people who are part of it will take it seriously and value it; it is simply a matter of institutional formation.

Mike Horton (52:25-53:42)

“If in our own churches and families, we’re worried about the individualism that isolates young people and cuts them off from genuine community – with its attendant responsibilities as well as treasures – then should we really blame the kids?”

It is any wonder that our youth feel alienated? It is true in their own experience.

“Are they really dropping out of church in their college years, or did they ever really belong in the first place?”

“Narcissism, pragmatism, and individualism have converged to create a new kind of spirituality that is not only worldly, but has the net result of un-churching the church itself, and all in the name of mission.”

The solution

The fix, as I see it, includes at least three components:

The church must become more age integrated (i.e. ditch most aspects that currently segregate, like separate worship, kids in Sunday school during service, etc.)

We adults must take Christianity seriously, which includes priority in our lives and our resolve to learn enough to teach AT LEAST our own children.

While the institutional church needs to get back to a focus on education (a church isn’t a school, but it should never be less than one), we’re going to need a grass-roots discipling movement in which you and I get involved. (cf. Greg Ogden’s Transforming Discipleship)

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/church-crisis-message-every-christian-needs-hear/feed/0The Resurrection of Jesus: A Look at the Evidencehttp://www.tilledsoil.org/resurrection-jesus-look-evidence/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/resurrection-jesus-look-evidence/#commentsTue, 15 Apr 2014 04:39:21 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=853While Christians know Jesus lives, is it reasonable for them to believe in the Resurrection based on the evidence? A part 3 look at the evidence.

]]>I can’t lay claim to being great at planning, as I had intended to finish this series some time ago. But with it being Holy Week, and with Easter just around the corner, it seemed a perfect time to conclude by looking at the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

In this third part, we’re going to work through some of the data. As I’ve noted previously, I’m not going to attempt to cover all the bases, as entire books and doctoral dissertations have been produced at that kind of depth. I’m only going to brush the surface, but I’d like to give you a feel for it. Consider it a starting point for your own investigation.

The basic argument goes something like this. We have a set of data, consisting of points with varying degrees of historical certainty, for which any explanation must cover, especially the more historically certain pieces of data. We have a historical figure who was alive at point A, dead at point B, and allegedly alive at point C. There is no serious contention about points A and B. The focus is almost entirely on point C, the Resurrection.

It is easy to come up with an explanation if we don’t pay attention to the entire set of data. One could say, “Well, Jesus followers were so intent on this movement succeeding, that they just made up the Resurrection account.” That sounds good until you start to look at ALL of the data. First, it doesn’t fit much of the actual historical record, including factors which someone making up such a story within that context would fail to include or would state differently (such as women as witnesses). Second, it would be hard to establish a motive for doing so within a Jewish/Roman context. Third, it would be highly unlikely for a number of conspirators, acting relatively independently, to give up their lives defending a lie. And then try explaining how a religious movement, which those in power were trying to squelch, could flourish based on a lie. Remember, this all took place in a city with a population estimated at maybe 40,000. Even without modern media, it would be pretty hard to miss such an event, or fail to check out lying adherents.

Some have tried to get around such problems by varying the explanation slightly. Maybe it was a hallucination, so the disciples really did believe it happened. That clears up some of the above problems, but ignores most of what we know about hallucinations, and again, ignores the actual account. For example, “To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God.” (1)Acts 1:3, NET That doesn’t sound anything like hallucination, so we’re back to a lie.

What are some of these points which need to be taken into consideration? Here is a short list: the mode of death, crucifixion; the report of blood and water from the wound; the despair of Jesus’ disciples; the empty tomb; the Roman guard; Joseph of Arimathea; testimony of women; report of a literal risen Jesus; the resurrected Jesus ate fish; transformed disciples, including skeptical James and converted Paul; Sunday worship and extreme growth of the early church; the eye-witness nature and detail accuracy of the accounts; external reference to the event in secular texts, etc.

Even seemingly insignificant pieces of data in this puzzle become powerful in that they are hard to otherwise explain. For example, how does one account for a change in the worship pattern of a bunch of Jewish people to Sunday morning? It seems we’re always back to trying to defend the lie or hallucination explanation.

Or, for those who would like to say this was all a later development, invented for theological purposes, they have to have explanations for things like: Paul’s citing of what appear to be creeds from VERY early after the actual events; the knowledge of details, such as burial practices only in effect for roughly a 100-year timespan.

Think through the following list of attempted explanations, and see if you think they even begin to hold up: unknown or wrong tomb (where the ancients that daft? what about eating fish, etc?); twin of Jesus (seriously?); hallucination or legend (already covered); existential or spiritual resurrection (see above); swoon theory (crucifixion); disciples stole the body (lie); authorities hid the body (why & conflict with historical accounts).

However, as Dr. Craig Hazen once noted, there is one theory, apart from the claimed Resurrection, that works: Jesus was an alien. (2)Apologetics Canada Conference keynote, 2011 It seems possible that Jesus was not God, but instead some kind of being with extraordinary powers who was able to trick the various Jewish figures throughout history to invent Judaism, and then fulfill those ‘prophecies’ by allowing himself to be crucified, beaming out to heal, and then beaming back to the disciples and others. As I think about that, I guess it works, (apart from all the other arguments for God necessary to put a cohesive worldview together).

Tinfoil hats aside, one then starts to question which is actually more likely… a super-unlikely grand cosmic conspiracy, or that what is portrayed in the Bible could be true. While the modern, highly revered discipline of science sometimes has trouble deciding if it can weigh in on the matter of deity, there is quite a bit of evidence we can examine about the likelihood of aliens or their potential ability to even visits us in the first place (before we get to the conspiracy aspect of it).

Ahh, the skeptic will say, but the majority of this ‘evidence’ comes from Biblical sources. That doesn’t count, right? First, if this is what you’re saying, go back and read my first two articles on the topic. That the evidence originating in Judeo/Christian writings could so easily be dismissed is just hand-waving. But let’s entertain that thought for a minute. What might we know if, for the sake of argument, we tossed out the documents contained in the Bible?

J. Warner Wallace has put together an excellent list of hostile pagan and Jewish sources regarding Jesus, “Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?” In it, he has a paragraph which sums up the data, and I’d like to include the relevant section of it here. (Reading the whole thing is eye-opening.)

“He was persecuted by the Jews for what he said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns and crucified on the eve of the Passover. His crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of his crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, he was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to his disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them his wounds. These disciples then told others that Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. … The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after his death.”

This summery contains a number of our most important points, and remember, we’ve excluded the Bible. Do any of the alternate theories encompass this data? Not that I can see. But again, there is no good reason for us to limit ourselves to hostile, extra-Biblical witness. This exercise simply shows that what is external to the collection of documents we Christians consider ‘The Bible’ is in general historical agreement.

And so, we end up full circle. Is the Resurrection possible, even likely, and in fact the best explanation we have? Or must one come up with an alternate explanation, no matter how ludicrous it might be? It seems that for most skeptics I come across, we’re back to a priori convictions driving the results, or sheer ignorance and an unwillingness to take a serious look.

This Easter, we Christians already know that Jesus lives, Hallelujah! But it is always nice to see how the historical data backs up our claim. For the skeptic, such an investigation should give pause. The Internet memes on which so many place their faith, are demonstrated empty of substance. With a little study, we should be equipped to expose this blind-faith, hopefully sparking a new journey of investigation to a clearer view of Jesus.

Update: Wednesday, April 30, 2014

I found a couple of great resources recently, which are quite interesting and unique. The first is by my friend J Warner Wallace (mentioned above). He puts his background as a homicide detective to work in this podcast in examination of the Resurrection account. For example, he talks about a medical explanation of the account of Jesus sweating blood. Amazing information which solidifies the testimony as eye-witness and authentic.

The second is yet another amazing episode of Unbelievable? radio podcast from the UK. Justin Brierley produced a special Good Friday episode looking at the Shroud of Turin, the purported burial clothes of Jesus. I’ve always had an interest in this piece of possible evidence, and its authenticity now appears more likely than ever.

]]>The idiom ‘forest for the trees’ in American English is a phrase that means that one might get so caught up in the details that they miss the larger concept or the goal; they are looking at the trees so closely, they don’t recognize the forest. This can be a danger in Christian apologetics; especially for us apologists! I often get caught up in responding to news stories or current events. I can get too focused on topics which I enjoy engaging and neglect others. (1)My wife has pointed out that may be the case here at TilledSoil recently. Because of this, I’m going to focus more on core apologetic topics before indulging too much more in news items.

The end GOAL of Christian apologetics should always be to lead people to Christ – or to be more theologically accurate – to be a means through which the Holy Spirit brings people to Christ. But it is also important to step back and take a higher level view of our approach and methods. This might be a good time, then, to talk about the big picture of apologetics. I’m going to talk about this in a number of different senses (ie: topics, methods, style, tips, etc.).

Topics

I identify three classes of topics which Christian apologetics addresses. The first I would call ‘foundational.’ These are things which prepare one for apologetics, such as knowing what apologetics is, epistemology, logic, critical thinking, history, worldviews, and definitions.

The second is what I’d call ‘classical’ or ‘traditional.’ These are the topics such as the Resurrection, existence of God, or revelation and reliability of the Bible. These haven’t changed since the Apostles.

The third are ‘hot topics’ within our culture. These might seem to be peripheral, or distractions, but they usually become reasons people turn away from Christianity unless properly understood (even then, they might still turn away, but we must stand for the truth). These change over time. In the early church, they were things like atheism (Christians didn’t worship many of the gods), cannibalism (they talked of eating flesh and drinking blood), and incest (everyone was called a brother or sister, even their spouse). Today, they include the environment, sexuality, Islam, and evolution.

A Christian apologist needs to have some familiarity with all of these. We can’t know it all, but familiarity helps us at least know where to look, and to not get caught off-guard.

Method and approach

There are a number of methods of going about apologetics, as well as theology and philosophy behind them. I’m not going to belabor some of the latter here, but want you to at least be aware of them and some dangers.

The first thing you will likely notice is that there is much debate over presuppositional vs evidential apologetics. This might be expected, as at their foundations, these two can’t really be reconciled philosophically or theologically. That said, I’ve rarely run into a purest, and in practice, nearly all apologists mix the techniques.

Presuppositional apologetics comes at things from the understanding that without God, arguments and knowledge fail in the first place. Since this is reality, flaws in the opponents case can be found and pointed out. Certainly, this is true on the Christian world view, and nearly every apologist uses such an approach at points. However, if woodenly applied, it starts violating the ‘with gentleness and reverence’ aspect of our 1 Peter 3:15 passage.

Evidential apologetics focuses more (exclusively?) on the person and their mind. Evidence is presented and built upon until the person is left with no choice but to see the reasonableness and weight of the Christian worldview. The critique comes in with the fall of humanity and the ‘why’ people don’t believe. Romans 1 says that people don’t believe in God, not because they lack information, but because they are hostile towards God.

There are many books on the subject, but one excellent discussion recently occurred between K Scott Oliphint and Kurt Jaros on Unbelievable? While I didn’t feel it did justice to explaining the Evidential position, it cleared up many misconceptions about the presuppositional position. Most apologists, in my experience, seem to look more like evidentialists in practice. Hopefully, though, they learn from the presuppositionalist camp in their view of humanity and knowledge. I think this view, in it’s underpinnings, is clearly Biblical, whereas a pure evidentialist view would run into theological problems.

What do some of the actual approaches look like? I’m going to list a few just in terms of flow or progression.

Existence of God -> God is best revealed in the Bible -> Jesus claimed to be God -> Resurrection validates the claim.

Meaning of life? -> Does God exist? -> Do all religions lead to God? -> Why is there evil? -> Is there life after death? -> Gospel message (3)H/T: Andy Steiger cf. Thinking Series or Apologetics’s Canada podcasts #9-14. An interesting new approach by my friend’s at Apologetics Canada which I hope to review soon.

These are presented just to give you an idea how some different apologists ‘flow’ or progress through conversation towards the goal.

Action: Familiarize yourself with some of the advantages and dangers of different approaches, and what the Bible says (theologically) and provides as an example. This will help you avoid pitfalls, keep the big picture in mind, and forge a path to get there. In the above progressions, are there aspects you are weak on or missing?

Tips and style

Build relationships and listen! I’m not sure I have to explain these too much, as they are part of the art of conversation and persuasion, but also crucial to really caring about someone. Unfortunately, they are really easy to forget in the moment.

Definitions are crucial to discussion. You might seem like a stickler at points for trying to pin them down, but if they are not, people just talk past one another and get frustrated. And watch the ‘inside language’ or terms which have meaning within Christianity, but are confusing or points of contention to unbelievers. ‘Faith’ is a great example, consider substituting trust.

Don’t go for the home-run. The Holy Spirit controls the heart and we just need to faithfully play our part. Every conversation doesn’t need an altar-call at the end. As Greg Koukl often points out, it might be best to just to ‘put a stone in their shoe.’ (Meaning something to ponder that will challenge their view.)

Specialize in some area (so you can contribute to the discipline), but remain broad enough to converse with anyone.

Apologetic arguments and worldview are like chain mail (armor), not a chain. (4)H/T: William Lane Craig If someone knocks out one of your arguments (or seems to), the whole system usually doesn’t crumble. Likewise, this is probably true of their worldview as well. (5)There are exceptions, of course. If Jesus didn’t resurrect, Christianity is finished. If the universe isn’t eternally existent, materialism fails.

Don’t let such conversations be a one-way interrogation. Both you and the person you are conversing with should have to answer the tough questions, as well as provide a positive case.

Watch out for the ‘pseudo-postmodern two-step’ as John Stackhouse calls it. “This is the rhetorical device of, first, using postmodernist criticism to de-privilege elites and then, second, asserting that the views of one’s own group are better than anyone else’s.” (6)John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today (Oxford University Press, 2002), 33-4.

Try to determine the underlying hopes and fears driving the person. (7)H/T Dr. John Stackhouse, Jr. If you meet an environmentalist (hostile to Christianity), you might find they have similar hopes about the world and their fears are a distortion of Christianity.

Are you debating? Being conversational? Being an ambassador? Different situations call for different approaches, but are we being appropriate to the situation? Do we look more like a combatant or an ambassador?

Action: Keep these kinds of tips in mind and review them often. Even if you do, being Christ’s ambassador will still be challenging. Constant practice is the key.

I remember one of my seminary professors saying that all Christians are theologians. The question is whether we’re good or bad ones. I would add apologists to that list. We are all called to ‘give a reason for the hope that we have in Christ’ during our lives. Will we do a good job in presenting that reason? In other words, will we be good apologists or bad ones? The Bible says we are to be prepared to do so… to be good apologists. (8)1 Peter 3:15 NASB – “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”

I’ll take this one step further. I often hear a debate between ‘Christian living’ and ‘life of the mind’ when it comes to Christian witness. The two go hand in hand. You can’t have one without the other and be effective. Let me illustrate: If I have the best answers and can defeat any idea brought against Christianity, yet don’t reflect Christianity in my life, most will reject my witness. Yet, if I live a flawless Christian life (at least as far as my fellow humans can see), but fail to give a proper reason when asked about it, I’m of little more benefit to witness than the Buddhist or New Age follower who might match my good behavior. In Christianity, the life and mind are inseparable.

1 Peter 3:15 NASB – “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”

]]>While browsing the news the other day, I ran across this article on CNN’s ‘Belief Blog,’ “Will camel discovery break the Bible’s back?” by Joel Baden, an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. I soon discovered it was one among many even more umm, ‘provocative,’ articles gaining popularity around the Internet. The conclusion of many of the articles was that this was yet ANOTHER devastating piece of evidence proving the Bible’s accounts are simply made up tales.

Joel Baden takes a slightly different tact. While indulging in some jabs at those who might take the Bible (especially Genesis) as historical, he notes “The camels in Genesis may be ‘wrong,’ but they are not a ‘mistake.’ We all imagine the past to the best of our knowledge, the biblical authors included.” Imagine the past? And he doesn’t seem bothered by this in the slightest. I suppose he’s one of the ‘I know He [Jesus] lives, He lives within in my heart’ types. (1)If that isn’t obvious from this article, read a couple of the other articles he links to near the beginning. For example, this gem: “The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history.” Or, is he simply studying the Old Testament because it, “…remain[s] so central to who we are as a culture, even today…”? Or, was the article just click-bait?

And soon, the Internet atheists and skeptics piled on in the comment section, as usual. For example, Dyslexic doG commented:

“HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Comedy gold!
OK Christians. Let me see you proclaim one more time that there has never been anything proved wrong in the bible.
Then we atheists can give you a laundry list of contradictions and historical inaccuracies and pure fantasy and downright foolishness.
And then you can proclaim one more time that there has never been anything proved wrong in the bible.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!”

While some responses were much more crude, with others being less taunting, this one seemed to represent the general sentiment among the skeptics.

Before I decided it best to cancel my Website hosting and sell the domain name, I decided to do something which apparently none of these folks did: a Google search! Or, what some old-fashioned folks might include in what is called research.

Apologetics tip #1: Don’t panic. Do some research.

I’m no expert on camels or Israeli archeology, and I’m guessing most of you aren’t either. However, if we spend a little time, most of us can work through such claims and do a little fact checking and context discovery by simply opening our browsers.

Apologetics tip #2: Saturate yourself with apologetics information.

In my case, I remembered hearing an apologist, many years ago, mention something about Old Testament skeptics and the domestication of camels. I couldn’t remember the details, but at least it got me started in the right direction. While I was searching for that, I ran across a bunch of articles that had already been written in response to the subject.

Apologetics tip # 3: Use your common sense.

But, even before that, my common sense kicked in when I thought about the situation. A common dictum one quickly learns in apologetics is: absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. For example, skeptics often claim that the Exodus didn’t take place because we haven’t found the archeological evidence for a large group of people wandering through the desert. Maybe we just haven’t found the evidence yet. Should we even expect to? What do evolutionists say when someone mentions the fact that we haven’t found ‘the missing link’ yet? Sure, if you’ve done an exhaustive investigation of something, and find nothing, that is a form of evidence which weighs on the situation, but it is hardly decisive.

Apologetics tip #4: Check the references.

Second, I actually followed the cited link in the article, and do you know what I discovered? While the author spoke of an actual scientific journal article he was referring to, the link actually referred to another news article (and the link in that article, to another news article), not the original scientific journal article. It’s unclear that any of these folks read the original, with the possible exception of the one at the end, which still didn’t link to the journal article.

So, this article which seems to be the research for the rest of the articles (interestingly, even most of the rebuttals I found linked back to this rather than the journal article) was a promotional piece by the ‘American Friends of Tel Aviv University.’ Aside from being a bit overly ‘flowery’ about the research, it took on the anti-Biblical tone the other articles seemed to pick up and amplify.

The original journal article doesn’t resemble all these other news articles, at least not in objective and tone. It only mentions ‘the Patriarchal narrative’ in the opening paragraph as one of two topics which contribute to and take interest in such research. The rest is simply an examination of the data, attempting to narrow the date of “the first significant appearance of [domesticated] camels in the Aravah Valley.”

That statement is important, as the Biblical record isn’t speaking of “a significant appearance,” but some camels owned or utilized by particular Biblical figures. And, anyone who knows a bit about archeology knows that typically it does take a significant presence, or particular circumstances, before such a record is left for us to discover. In this case, the sites were copper smelting operations they think might be related to Pharaoh Shoshenq I’s campaigns.

Also, it is fairly well known that domesticated camels did exist in Egypt and other places (Iran, Babylon, etc.) long before this (possibly as early as 3000 BC, but certainly 2nd millennium BC), and the Bible mentions Abraham traveling to Egypt. (2)cf. “The Domestication of the Camel in the Ancient Near East” You see, before this evidence that domesticated camels existed in Egypt, the focus of the skeptics was on Genesis 12:16 where it says Abraham had them in Egypt. In other words, this debate is a rehash, just pushed forward a step by archeology. The skeptics lost on Egypt, now they are digging in their heels concerning Israel. But, if Abraham had them in Egypt, is it a huge leap to think that he took them out of Egypt with him, and that archeology hasn’t (and likely never will, nor should be expected to) find evidence for such few numbers of them? (cf. “Abraham’s Camels” by Joseph P. Free)

Apologetics tip #5: Follow some of the research branches.

Procedural note: When I found the first PDF resource in the paragraph above through a Google search, I traced that back to the article it was linked from and found the following article which contained the second great resource. “The Camel Claim is Sensational and Unwarranted” by Shawn Nelson. Other apologists might find some great stuff that you don’t. Don’t miss out on mining that gold! (But do remember to give credit!)

So, as it turns out, the actual archeologists making the claims might well be dead on IN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY CLAIM! There may well not be evidence of large numbers of domesticated camels in Israel to support mining operations and trade before 1000 BC. However, that has little bearing on the Biblical accounts in Genesis which include camels. In other words, the data just doesn’t support the conclusions all these articles popping up all over the media are claiming (which is often the case when one compares modern journalism to the original research).

If they had bothered to read the original article and/or left their axe (to grind) home, they might not have made such a silly error. And, as you can see, it didn’t take an expert on camels or Israilli archeology to figure that out… just a bit of work. Unfortunately, many journalists carry around such an axe today, just looking for opportunities to put their spin on the data. And, to be fair, I often see Christians do the same. Watch out for this, from either side!

Don’t believe me? Does anyone else find it a bit odd that a tent-making (ie: far less than full-time) Christian apologist (with the help of a few other similar bloggers), can do a better research job than journalists from Time Magazine, The New York Times, CNN, National Geographic, NPR (National Public Radio), PRI (Public Radio International), The Smithsonian, to name just a few? Methinks there is more than just sloppy journalism afoot.

If that isn’t obvious from this article, read a couple of the other articles he links to near the beginning. For example, this gem: “The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history.”

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/dissecting-camel-tale-apologetics-meets-media/feed/0The New-er Atheists: Two movements battle for heart and mindhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/new-er-atheists-two-movements-battle-heart-mind/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/new-er-atheists-two-movements-battle-heart-mind/#commentsWed, 15 Jan 2014 04:12:22 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=828New Atheism is getting old, but there are two new-er atheist movements Christians do need to take seriously, which go after both the heart and mind.

]]>The term ‘New Atheist’ is beginning to get a bit old already. It is still relatively new, chronologically, at least in relation to centuries of classical atheists. The movement seems to have arisen, or at least gained popularity, after the events of 9/11 (2001) in the USA. It was characterized by a shift towards the use of rhetoric, emotion, fear, and embodied very ‘religious’ type behaviors (some argue mirroring religious fundamentalists), despite the often claimed ‘reason’ branding.

However, in more scholarly circles (even among atheists, humanists, and skeptics), New Atheism has started to fade as it has become recognized that the tactic, while stirring up the core base, hasn’t been so effective beyond that. That said, there is little doubt it has had an impact on society in general.

A new strategy

A couple of recent movements have dropped much of the vitriol of atheists like Richard Dawkins, and have exchanged it for some new strategies. The reason I want to highlight these movements, is that I believe they present a real challenge, not so easily countered. They, in fact, utilize the strategies many in Christian apologetics employ, and often target the same audiences: the mushy middle and the unequipped Christian.

I heard Peter speak back in October 2013 on a skeptic’s podcast I listen to, The Malcontent’s Gambit. While I feel Boghossian got a number of things wrong when he started talking about Christianity, such as his definition of faith, he gets a lot of things right as well. Despite our differences, I found myself really liking the guy and agreeing quite often. For example, he rightly critiques what he calls the ‘affinity ghettos’ of the contemporary academic left. He concludes (rightly) that this damages his efforts to promote truth, just as I feel it does my own. He says that the move in tolerance of people to tolerance of ideas, has been devastating. Amen! However, he also concludes that this allows ‘faith’ ideas to flourish, which he sees as false. This is called epistemic relativism, and we should join hands with Boghossian in defeating it. How often have we heard Christian apologists such as Greg Koukl speak on this topic?

He also laments the loss of civility in discourse, as well as the censorship happening all over the country (and world) on debate over various topics and ideas. He mentions a recent attempt to have a campus debate on a matter related to Islam, and notes that it was the leftists screaming about it, not the Muslims. He says this is so condescending to the Muslims, failing to fairly engage their ideas.

Notice how closely much of this matches what Christian apologists might say. I’d almost think he read Greg Koukl’s Tactics book, as he also employs the use of ’Columbo-style questions’ and the Socratic method. In other words, Boghossian is going after the mind, and in my opinion, doing so very effectively. At the same time, some of his critiques of Christianity are almost laughable, such as his picks of Christian evidence to examine being Transubstantiation and speaking in tongues. Have you ever heard a Christian apologist use either as evidences for Christianity?

Tom Gilson brings out the background that Boghossian is trained in philosophy, a teacher/professor, and a specialist in persuasion theory and behavior-change theory. He not only knows it and teaches it, but has effectively put it to use in the Oregon state prison system. He’s going to be someone important to contend with, as these techniques can apply to spread truth just as much as inaccuracy. And, while I said I like Boghossian, I don’t like his intent. He wants to remove bad ideas (ie: religion) from being a what he calls the ‘adult table.’ In other words, he doesn’t want to suppress things from being discussed, but only ‘true’ things should be considered important in the public square. All else is relegated to the ‘kids table,’ though certainly free to take place.

Sean Faircloth – The battle for heart

Someone you might not have heard of, is Sean Faircloth, a long-term state legislature member and politician. I also recently heard him being interviewed by Alan Litchfield. In 2009, he became executive director of Secular Coalition for America, and more recently, in 2011, became Director of Strategy and Policy for the Richard Dawkins Foundation. I’ve actually noticed a change in Dawkins’ public behavior over the last year or two and wonder if this might be part of the reason.

Sean is in some ways opposite Peter Boghossian. Peter, while I feel misguided, seems to be on a noble venture. Faircloth, on the other hand, seems set out to win. He has studied how the ‘Religious Right’ came to power, and seeks to emulate this for secularism in America. He is the author of, Attack of the Theocrats!: How the Religious Right Harms Us All-and What We Can Do About It. His focus is on organizing, lobbying, and politics. He understands the need for grass-roots efforts and having proper, focused, long and short-term goals.

His most recent effort is focused through SecularityUSA. They are using a tactic employed by former President Carter, who gained popularity in Iowa. The Iowa caucuses have become a major, long, media focus in the run-up to the USA presidential elections. He knows they can get major world-wide press coverage if they employ the right strategies. They see 2014 as a big organizing time; 2015 as a time to push into the public; all in preparation for 2016.

Their primary focus is to get religion out of government via the separation clause. They realize they will be heavily attacked by the ‘Religious Right’ and intend on using this through a coordinated effort with clergy and religious leaders to make it backfire.

But, I’m calling this an appeal for the heart, as one of their primary tools is going to be the use of horrific cases where ‘faith healer’ Christians have refused medical attention for their children, often leading to their deaths. Faircloth says, “Sometimes atheists, and I commend them for it in a sense, will say, ‘well anecdotal evidence is not good evidence,’ – true, but it’s strategic evidence. It’s the door opening. You tell the story of the human harm.” (2)18:18 min in Strategically, I would agree, and this is a method William Wilberforce used to abolish slavery and the Pro-life movement has been using to fight the abortion industry. The difference being that Faircloth has taken a fringe extreme that most Christians would also find appalling, and is painting the whole with it. That said, we must not underestimate the effectiveness this will have.

I almost think Gilson’s book, ‘Atheist Tactician’ would have been better aimed at Faircloth. This guy is a true political tactician aimed at organizing, on common ground, atheists, humanists, skeptics and free-thinkers in our society. Lack of organization and common voice have arguably been one of their major weak-points. And, I don’t doubt their ability to partner with many, if not all of the more liberal wing of Christianity and other religions.

I did agree with Faircloth on one major point besides the effectiveness of their strategy. He agrees with many Christians on morality being the only thing we can legislate (in opposition to the ‘you can’t legislate morality’ slogan). But, he advocates taking the term morality back from the ‘right.’ He has noticed through his political work that the ‘right’ often used the morality card to make their case, and the ‘left’ seem to avoid it, giving that point to the ‘right.’ But, he says, the ‘left’ shouldn’t be letting the ‘right’ be the only ones to play the morality game.

Conclusion

Tom Gilson said that Tim McGrew’s initial assessment of Boghossian’s work is that while he isn’t a heavy-hitter, as he makes a number of clear and crucial mistakes, that he will ‘rip through the average church-goer like a buzz-saw through balsa.’ (See update on this quote below.) I would agree, as while these ‘newer’ atheists largely setup a straw-man with regard to Christianity, they are quite right about the state of a large number of their target Christian audience and their ill-equipped state, not to mention the ‘mushy middle’ of the general populace.

These tactics will be effective. The question becomes who is better organized, with greater numbers, Christian apologists, or these new-er atheists? In the end, of course, God is in control. But, are we being faithful in our role as Christian case-makers?

Update: Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Regarding the above Tim McGrew quote:
I suppose I should be honored that Peter Boghossian or one of his agents actually took the time to read my article, but imagine my surprise when I learned they pulled a paraphrased quote from MY article to ‘endorse’ Peter’s book… yes, you read that right, an actual endorsement on the Amazon site. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that book endorsements were usually given by the actual person giving the endorsement. I can be so naive sometimes!

Well in that case, you might want to check out Dr. Tim McGrew’s ACTUAL opinion of Boghossian’s book. I’ll also include the full quote here for clarity: “My initial assessment: he’s not a heavy hitter, and he’s making a number of clear and crucial mistakes – BUT – he’ll rip through the average church-goer like a buzz-saw through balsa.”

That’s a bit of a stretch as an endorsement, IMO. As Dr. McGrew rightly notes, it’s more an accurate assessment of the sad state of Christian education and apologetics in our churches. Or, to put this another way, it doesn’t take all that much effort to ‘rip through the average church-goer like a buzz-saw through balsa’ these days (which, in fact, is actually included in the analogy… a point Boghossian or his agents seem to have missed!)

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/new-er-atheists-two-movements-battle-heart-mind/feed/6Free-will and choice confusionhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/free-will-choice-confusion/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/free-will-choice-confusion/#commentsSun, 15 Dec 2013 01:55:38 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=818Do we have free-will, or simply free-choice? If we don’t, is everything determined? A look at the all-too-often confusion of terms and some implications.

]]>I’m writing this article as a plea for Christians and skeptics alike, but especially theologians and apologists, to use the term ‘free will’ more carefully. I hear mistakes and mis-speaks so often that it has become one of my pet-peeves. I’m also hoping that providing a bit of detail on the distinction will positively impact our theological and apologetics discussion. This distinction does, or should, have an impact on a number of topics such as ‘the problem of evil’ or the Calvin/Arminian debate. I also welcome discussion in the comments on the more technical, philosophical distinctions (which are probably a layer above, though helpful to the purpose of this article).

Will vs Choice

Many times when I hear the term ‘free will’ used, what the speaker or writer really means is choice or free choice. We generally have free choices when we make decisions. Our wills, however, seem hardly free. Christian theology aside, our wills are shaped and influenced by many internal and external factors over our lives. In fact, within a materialistic worldview, anything apart from determinism seems difficult to defend.

On a Christian worldview, the Bible seems quite clear about the fallen state of our hearts. When the Bible speaks of ‘heart’ we can often think of will as at least one component of what is meant. In other words, when we speak of will today, the ancient Hebrew would have spoken of heart. We basically can’t NOT sin, not because we can’t choose not to sin, but because of our fallen nature and our will’s inclination towards sin. Our choices, then naturally follow from the intentions of our will. This is often stated in theology as – non posse non peccare – or not able not to sin.

Even if we could somehow override our wills in our point by point decision making, such that we didn’t break the various moral laws, we would certainly fail on the big one – loving God with our whole selves. All the free choices in the world can’t fix a will opposed to God. We won’t love God, and therefore almost certainly, won’t make the right choices, no matter how free they may be.

In one sense, even God does not have free-will, as God can’t sin. Of course, this doesn’t mean God is not capable of carrying out a sinful action. If we can do it, God certainly can! But what we mean, is that God’s very nature, and thus will, is in opposition to sin such that God will never choose sin. As abhorrent as torturing babies for fun would seem to us (hopefully!), God can’t stomach sin, though He is capable of the actual action. So, the idea that God can’t sin really means that God won’t sin.

Even when we make the right choices, we often don’t make them for the right reasons. Much like a trained animal, we’re just carrying out behaviors based on social conditioning and tastes we’ve developed. Even if our wills are opposed to God, we still make choices which would be considered morally good at times. This is why it is false to claim, for example, that atheists can’t live in morally good ways. Of course they can. They were raised in a civilized society and are made in the image of God. Some of them make better choices than many Christians, at least on some things. The problem is, that this doesn’t get at what is really in the will. When our wills are conformed to God, we don’t just make the right choices (and hopefully more often), we make them for the right reasons.

I often hear a critique of the idea that our wills aren’t really free, being that God wouldn’t punish those who lack ability. This is a great example, as it highlights the confusion I’m talking about. If there were no free-choice, this might be true. Such a being would be essentially a robot. However, we are fully capable of making the right choices, the problem is with the driver of our choices, our will. We’re opposed to following God’s commands, which causes us to make sinful choices for which we are, justly, accountable. But those choices are freely made.

This brings to mind problematic analogies sometimes used in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. (1)Note, I don’t yet have the following books, so I’m going from what I’ve heard concerning them. They are on my reading list if I ever get time! For example, Norm Geisler uses a salvation analogy of kids drowning in a farmer’s pond in Chosen But Free. The idea being that these kids, guilty because they ignored the posted sign, recognize they are drowning, and are offered ropes, but some refuse. While this might correctly portray choice, in that they are free to grab a rope tossed to them, or to resist being rescued, it doesn’t capture the correct state of the will (the real source of the problem). Unbelievers, it seems to me, don’t recognize they are drowning, and despise the rescue rope, among other problems.

James White offers a counter example in The Potter’s Freedom, where people are burning down the King’s castle. Despite their destructive (and self-destructive efforts), the Prince rescues some of them anyway. This, in my opinion, better captures the Biblical state of our wills, yet allows for free-choice to be a reality. But, since the will drives choice, once the will is inclined towards God, it would seem that (salvific) choice would follow, as well as better moral choices and our ability to love God as we are sanctified (a process).

Another point on which this has heavy bearing is in eschatology. Will our wills be free in heaven? After thinking about this for a bit with the common usage of this term, the answer becomes clear…. I hope not! I’m hoping to have a transformed will, which is conformed to Christ’s, not a ‘free’ one. I don’t want another Fall. I expect that I’ll have free-choice, I just won’t WANT to do anything sinful, and I WILL want to love God with my whole being. That doesn’t mean I will be any less ‘free’ than I feel I currently am. But instead of a fallen-will driving my choices, I’ll have a Christ-like one, which is, after all, how I was intended to be by my Creator. If you disagree, please explain how God is going to abolish sin and evil in the hereafter with ‘free’ beings (in the free-will sense commonly used).

I recently heard a great discussion (in terms of easy to understand, the best I’ve heard), which touched on this issue on Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason podcast. “French Former Atheist Naturalist becomes Christian” (November 26, 2013 – play-time 01:32:47 through 01:44:00)

Whether you agree or disagree with my conclusions and applications, please do consider your use of the terms ‘will’ and ‘choice’ more carefully in these kinds of discussions.

Update: Wednesday, January 8, 2014

While listening to a podcast episode of Cross Examined (Jan 1, 2014 – “How Morality Proves God” 53:30 in), Frank Turek illustrated a commonly heard view I would like to critique. He said, “Everybody knows that God exists. You have to suppress the truth about it in order to say he doesn’t. But not everybody trusts in him. Why? Because God gives you the free will to go your own way. He will not force you into heaven against your will. If you don’t want God now, you’re not going to want Him in eternity.” I think C.S. Lewis popularized this view, saying God is a gentleman. He doesn’t force people to believe or not believe. I suppose I would agree, as far as it goes.

But, I think this example illustrates just such a confusion over will and choice. If you are in the fallen state, your will is hostile towards God. As Frank said, if you don’t want God, you won’t want God in eternity either. Given the free choice, man will “go their own way” straight to hell… EVERY time, shaking their fist at God the whole way!

Now, if God intervenes, our will is changed, as the hostility is removed. But we’re also given God’s spirit and started on a path of sanctification (being conformed to the will of Christ in the process). God doesn’t have to force the person into heaven, as they, in a regenerate state, want to be in right relationship with God. They will freely choose to do so.

It seems to me to be an either/or situation. The will is fallen and hostile towards God, and the person will freely choose hell. Or, the will is regenerate, being conformed to the will of Christ. This person is going to freely choose heaven.

Update: Saturday, September 6, 2014

Greg Koukl does it again with another great discussion on this topic on his Stand to Reason radio show and podcast. Here is a link to the episode entitled, “First Day of School (September 2, 2014).” The conversation with a caller, “How do you reconcile free will and Calvinism?” goes from time 02:31:48 – 2:57:38.

First, I like how Greg corrects the importance of this issue. Like he says, that unlike things like the age of the earth, you can’t help but deal with this issue if you study Scripture. And, it forms a foundation for all kinds of critical foundations of Christianity, like soteriology, the doctrine of salvation.

Second, I like how Greg stresses that we have to deal with actual WORDS and passages used in Scripture, like: election, predestined, chosen, etc. They have to mean something, and we have to deal with that.

Third, he again discusses the types of freedom and implications. This is important to understand in the discussion. Greg says ‘free-will’ is often used as a trump-card, as in… you have all these verses, BUT ‘free-will.’ However our choices work into the equation, Scripture is quite clear our wills are not free. (cf. Martin Luther’s On the Bondage of the Will) Greg talks about our compromised-will. Do we have free-will? Yes, and it is broken.

The virtue of integrity seems to be suffering greatly today. While I sometimes fail to express this quality at its best, it has always been an important pursuit of mine. I could never understand, for example, how Christian friends would simply divide ‘business’ and ‘personal’ in their lives. (1)I know to some extent that such a division needs to exist, if for no other reason than legal liability. I’m talking here of the simple ease and extent to which so many make the distinction. They would treat a friend one way, yet in business, easily treat people entirely differently. Even personally, they might sell their troubled car, best hiding any problems it might have, without even hesitating to consider the morality of such behavior (or worry about the effect on the unsuspecting buyer).

In Christian apologetics, integrity is a critical virtue. Not only is it morally significant – being expected as a virtue of a Christian – but also is an integral aspect of the discipline (as it is of many disciplines. Can you imagine not caring if your doctor or accountant were virtuous?). I’ve heard it said that once someone has put something into print, it is very unlikely they will correct it. That needs to be the polar-opposite behavior of the Christian apologist. (2)You’ll note that we try to practice this here at TilledSoil.org, by constantly updating and correcting our articles. We usually even leave the incorrect information in place – though marked out – just for the sake of transparency, and so that corrective comments will make sense.

A Christian apologist needs to be ready to learn new information, fairly present the opposing viewpoint, take correction humbly, and when someone has been wronged, or Christian witness damaged, apologize and take corrective actions. This is not easy. We all fail in some manner as our egos get in the way.

This all said, ALL apologists (and people for that matter), fail in their lives and ministries in various ways. When these failings impact our ministries, this is especially an occasion for repentance, mourning, and taking the best corrective actions we are able to muster. We’ve damaged more than our personal growth as a Christian disciple, as well as hurt those close to us; we’ve damaged Christian witness.

It is bad enough when a Christian disciple has a personal failing which impacts their ministry, but far worse when this failing is directly connected to the nature of the ministry itself. For example, it is one thing if someone involved in a pro-life ministry secretly had an abortion to cover-up their pregnancy. This would certainly cause a stir in the media, doing damage to the ministry. Yet, it would be quite another thing if it were found out that the director of a pro-life ministry was secretly moonlighting as an abortion doctor. The latter would fundamentally undermine the ministry’s message and credibility.

The Ergun Caner scandal

As a case study, I’d like to examine the ongoing saga of Ergun Caner, the ex-Muslim ‘extremest’ from Ohio, turned Christian convert and Evangelical rising-star. I pick this scandal as an example because of its importance, scale, longevity, and breadth of entanglement within the Evangelical community.

What is the big deal? That is the point the supporters of Ergan Caner have been trying to sell (doing so quite effectively, I might add). This is why the situation has been dubbed, “The Great Evangelical Cover Up.” (3)Or, maybe the recent ‘Evangelical Industrial Complex’ that got to Janet Mefferd. See: More allegations of plagiarism surface against Mark Driscoll or I Told You This Was No Boating Accident! or Publisher: Mark Driscoll Improperly Copied Paragraphs from Bible Commentary It is a coverup reaching to the highest levels of the Evangelical community (at least the American community). The word on this needs to get out, as it is simply unacceptable. It not only involves the actual deception cased by Ergun, and the ensuing damage to Christianity, but now concerns the integrity of the American Christian apologetics community (and beyond). Being part of that community, I’m not willing to let this slide by without trying. (4)And, we shouldn’t be. See Why I Criticize in Public by Dr. John G. Stackhouse.

If you would like to research it yourself, just Google, “The Great Evangelical Cover Up” and start reading, watching, and listening. The evidence is excruciatingly clear for anyone who bothers to pay attention. I have included a resource section below with many links.

I want to express my thanks to Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries, pastor Jason Smathers, Jonathan Autry, and others who have exposed this dangerous behavior (at great personal cost), and join them in hoping Ergun Caner will one day come to his senses, recognize how a Christian should be conducting himself, repent, and join us in working to correct the damage he has done.

The Ergun Caner story

Ergun was born in Sweden, but moved at a very young age (2 or 3-years old) to the USA and then a suburb of Columbus, Ohio (Gahanna, to be exact. I’ve been there several times when I lived in Columbus for over a decade. From my experience, Ergun should have run across a Christian or two growing up there). (5)I’m also a bit baffled by his mention of ‘urban jungle’ so often. I don’t really think of Gahanna, or even Columbus, as an urban jungle. Maybe this is just a matter of perspective, as I’ve been in Chicago so many times, and have lived in larger metro areas like San Francisco and Vancouver. Besides, I’m not here to deny him whatever chic urban pastor image he might be going for. His father was a Muslim, and though his parents separated when Ergun was fairly young, I’m sure he had an impact on Ergun and his siblings. I have no complaint that Ergun considers himself a Muslim (is anyone contesting this???), who later converted to Christianity (in his teens). And, while he’s made numerous mistakes concerning Islam, I’m sure he knows more about some aspects of Islam than I currently do. In some sense, I suppose he’s an expert so long as we don’t push that definition too far.

However, somewhere along the way (seeming shortly post-9/11), Ergun (commonly referred to up until that point as Butch Caner or E. Michael Caner) decided that simply coming from a Muslim family and converting to Christianity wasn’t a good-enough testimony. I don’t know if his intention was to sell more books, become a famous speaker, career advancement, or even to more effectively impact audiences to pay attention to Islam and Christian apologetics (the latter, certainly a noble ambition.). He created an alter-ego, Ergun Mehmet Caner, who was raised in the Middle East, trained as a Muslim extremist, hated Americans, and had difficulty integrating into American society. He passed himself off, not only as someone with technical knowledge of Islam (which he debatably, might have), but as an insider of a deep nature, turned convert. It must have worked, as even the US military hired him to speak to the troops before deployment to Iraq. Even if you don’t give a hoot about Christianity or apologetics, that should put a bit of fear in you (whether the deception of the US military, or their background check capabilities!).

He made claims to have debated top Muslim apologists, even in Arabic and other languages which Ergun doesn’t know. This is how he got caught by one prominent Christian apologist, Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries, who fortunately didn’t lack the integrity necessary to resist going along with many of Ergan’s peers in ignoring all of this. Imagine Dr. White’s surprise when he was contacted by a Muslim concerning Ergun Caner’s alleged debate with Shabir Ally in Nebraska (Dr. White actually had debated Shabir a number of times). He started looking into this, contacted Shabir Ally, and realized this was false. As he looked into this further, he found more and more problems… on MANY different sermons and lectures. He even found Ergun telling different stories to Christian audiences than he was telling to interviews with Turkish newspapers.

Ergun has made numerous basic mistakes in his knowledge of Islam, including such things as references to Hadith which couldn’t possibly be followed if one has a cursory knowledge of Islam. An analogous example Christians would easily understand might be… how many of you, despite your level of Christian scholarship, would tell someone to look up Bible 5:29. That level of error, makes some Christian apologists question Ergun’s core knowledge of Islam. At minimum, it is extremely sloppy scholarship.

Worse, despite Ergun’s efforts, the evidence of this deception keeps coming out, and has been now since around 2005-06. Eventually, the heat became a bit too much to not look into, at least in some sort of manner. Investigations, by his employer at the time were launched. Problems were found. Ergun was disciplined. He did ‘apologize’ in a sort of fake manner, saying he was sorry that he misspoke on a few occasions. I’ll just let you find and watch a few of the videos and audio clips of Ergun and see if you’re buying the ‘misspoke’ line. (Hint: It is so obvious that such a thing would be funny were it not for the fact that so many gullible Christians have simply bought that story without checking it out.) (6)Here is a recent example of James White making it incredibly obvious. Laughter in Medina: the Ongoing Saga of the Caner Scandal

Still worse, many powers-that-be within the Evangelical community have been involved in the cover up. I know fellow-apologists I traffic among have likely seen my tweets and retweets concerning this cover up over the last couple years. None have retweeted or commented, save one brave former professor of mine who commented on one of my tweets, confirming the ridiculous nature of this ‘farce/fiasco,’ as he put it. My point being that many know, but most are keeping quiet. If Liberty University did any kind of meaningful inquiry into the allegations, they know much more than they reflected in their findings. Even prominent, highly-esteemed Christian apologists such as Dr. Norm Geisler (ironically, a professor at Veritas, which is Latin for truth) have come to Ergun’s rescue with laughable defenses. Motive? I don’t know. Beyond the ‘good-ol-boy network’ reflected in the, ‘why are we Christians picking on our own?’ type responses, I can only, charitably, assume they fail see how damaging this situation is and deem the benefits outweigh the negatives.

The worst, is the damage this is doing to Christian witness, especially to Muslims. How can we call Muslim apologists to account concerning factual accountability or loose-cannons within their fold when we’ve got an obvious one in our camp, right under our noses, yet do nothing or cover for him? By extension, how can I (as I’m not yet trafficking in apologetics to Islam to great extent) call out skeptic/atheists such as John Loftus as fakes (or con-artists), if I’m unwilling to call out those on my own side? And yes, Muslim apologists ARE talking about and using Ergun in their efforts.

Then, there is the broader manner of damage to Christian witness and apologetics when a prominent figure conducts himself in such a manner and then is supported, rather than disciplined, by the community.

The evidence

I thought it might be interest to take a look at the Ergun Caner defense given by Dr. Norm Geisler(7)The original document seems to have been authored by someone using Truett-McConnell College’s Microsoft Office license… guess who the president is… for whatever that is worth. in light of Ergan’s own testimony before the US Marines. (The article has moved many times on his site, so we’ll see how this goes… I made an image of the page on Dec 8th, 2013, just in case.) Unfortunately, I’d love to transcribe the actual testimony of Ergun from the video, but Ergun is suing the pastor who posted it (Jason Smathers), so it has been temporarily removed while the lawsuit drags on. Ergun will most certainly lose, as the actual video, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the US military, indicates no copyright. However, this means I’ll have to use transcription of clips from various other lectures and sermons.

First, let’s consider some of what Ergun Caner has said:

“Mine just happens to begin from a position of animosity. I hated you. I am 21 generations, a Turk. … Everything we knew about you, we knew only because we were taught from outside. I had no contact with Christians, I had no contact with Jews.”

“I was born in Istanbul, Turkey. I am a sand-monkey; been called worse. I came to America after going to Beirut and then Cairo. And, when I came to American in 1978, at the age of 14 years old. Um, I’ve lived a very urban life.”

“Everything I knew about America, I knew through television before I came here. That, could you imagine? In Turkey, wherever we were watching television – whatever the Turkish government allowed – that was my glimpse of America. And so I would watch that and say, ‘That must be America.’” (How much do kids learn from TV before the age of 3?)

“I cannot be president. I came in 1978 when I was getting ready to go to college.”

“I learned English on Sesame Street. Held back a year from school so that I could learn English so I could follow along better.”

“I hated you. That may be harsh, but as Dr. Hays told you, my madrasa, my training center, was in Beirut.”

“And so we came to America, it was ’78. Ayatollah Khomeini had said, we will not stop until America is an Islamic nation, and so we came.” (Wasn’t Ergan Sunni???)

“I was the oldest; my father brought his wives with him. Yes, polygamist Muslims do come to America, they call it the Abraham Lie. Basically, this is my wife, and this is my sister.”

“Every debate, Abdul Saleeb, Nadir Ahmed, Shabir Ally, every debate I’ve had with these men, they always end at the same point, so what if Jesus did die?”

“… you can do for yourself in Islam. One of the #1 lines that Shabir Ally, the muslim apologist, gave me at the debate which took place in Nebraska was, ‘why does man have to die for me?’”

“I spent the first 17 years of my life assuming that you, as Christians, hated me. I mean, I’d never been in a church, I’d never really been around too many Christians. There’s not that many of them in Turkey or in Sweden. And, coming to America, I’d lived under the misconception that you hated me, as a Muslim. That really affected a lot of what I did in my younger years. I’m not really proud of the fact that I was part of the Islamic jihad.”

“And I walked into that little church. My English was very poor. There was a great and glorious time when my hair was long. They didn’t make fun of my accent. They didn’t make fun of the clothes I wore.” (If he grew up in Gahanna, Ohio from the age of 2 or 3, why would his English be very poor? Why would he have an accent? Where did it go?)

Basically, the story he spun (even if you could wiggle around various aspects textually), had been that he was the son of an Islamic scholar, who came to America in his teens prior to university. He had been trained in jihad in madrases in Istanbul, Beirut, and Cairo. He hated us. His knowledge of English, America, and Christians came from watching TV shows. He says his father was a polygamist who brought multiple wives with him. He claimed to dress in full Arabic clothing, even in public school (though Muslims in Turkey don’t wear Arabic clothing… and any of his school photos look pretty 70’s American to me). After his conversion and education, he made numerous claims to have debated over 60 Muslims, even Imams in mosques in the Arabic language. And this is the impression his audiences were left with.

The defense

Now, let’s take a look at Norm Geisler’s defense (and remember, this guy is a top APOLOGIST):

About his place of birth?
“Since both Ergun and his father were Turkish citizens, he strongly identified with that ancestry. Thus, an occasional misspoken word about his birthplace is understandable.”

Really? Would you make this many major mistakes about your history… over and over again? Read Ergun’s statments again, or better listen to Ergun at some of the resources below. Does this sound like misstatement, or an intentional, intricate story spun to sell you on his authority on the subject matter?

About his having lived in Turkey?
“Ergun traveled with his father to Turkey several times.”

So, lets say you made a few trips to Beijing, but spent most of your life in Texas. Would you misspeak about growing up in China, and weave this into a story about how you were so out of place in Texas, because all you knew was Chinese culture? While you fumbled with your chop-sticks as a teen, you were shocked at everyone using forks and spoons?

About learning what you know of America from Dukes of Hazzard, etc.?
“This statement was intended as humor and was taken as such by the audience.”

Watch the videos folks. While it might be a joke, he uses it as part of his basis of learning English and his misconceptions about American life. If he came here at 2-3 years old, he didn’t learn everything about America, including English, from a TV show. This is true of many in other countries, but Ergun made it about himself.

About the confusion over whether he came to the USA in 1978 or 1982?
“It is well known that Caner became a US citizen in 1978. The other date is from the period of his call to the ministry and is sometimes lumped together with the earlier date in his testimony. … Since it is well known by Bible scholars that this kind of thing is found in the Scriptures…”

Did he really just do that?!?! That’s sickening, actually. No, Norm, this kind of thing IS NOT found in Scriptures. It would be one thing if these were just a couple of dates from Ergan’s mid-life events, and he got some numbers mixed up. It’s quite another to mix up a date right around your birth, and another from your late teens, then build your life story on that. Toss in some dates and events from your own life. Could you make such a mistake… over and over again? And even if you were that confused or clumsy, would you keep them straight enough so that you used them this way when speaking to one kind of audience, but the other way when you spoke to people who were likely to catch you on it? Would you utilize this date discrepancy in a foundational way such as to build your case… accidentally, over and over again? Does Norm think we’re all stupid??? And then to drag God’s Word in to defend such foolishness… I’m not sure I can ever respect Norm again. Yea, this particular one has my righteous anger a bit riled up!

And my personal favorite (remember, from a Christian apologist, no less):
About Ergun’s father’s polygamy?
“Ergun’s father did have two wives, having divorced the first one.”

Did you read the quotes by Ergan above, or listen to the videos? Are you laughing? Unfortunately, I’ve seen places where people are discussing this Caner farce, where they cut and paste these ‘answers’ from Norm’s site. If this is how Christian apologists operate, we may as well all just pack up and go home now. The skeptics may be right about our naivety and lack of critical thinking! Fortunately, there is an apologetics world beyond the ‘good-ol-boy’s network’ where this stuff doesn’t fly. Can you imagine Norm giving such a lame response to a Christian apologetics question? Can you imagine Norm responding to an atheist who used this kind of argument?

“Ergun has readily admitted the mistakes he has made and has apologized for them publically.”

Take a look at the apology:
“I have never intentionally misled anyone. I am sure I have made many mistakes in the pulpit in the past 20-plus years, and I am sure I will make some in the future. For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better.”

Now, let’s take a quick look at the ‘repentant’ Ergun Canner’s twitter feed:

“Having examined all these charges against Dr. Caner carefully and having looked at the related evidence, I can say without hesitation that all of the moral charges against Dr. Caner are unsubstantiated. … Dr. Caner is a man of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to Christ.” – Dr. Norman Geisler

“Dr. Geisler’s response to the charges brought against Dr. Ergun Caner by some Muslims and other groups has hit the mark.” – Dr. Joseph Holden, President of Veritas Evangelical Seminary. (I wonder if this guy looked for himself?)

Conclusion

I don’t know Ergun personally. Apart from this mess, I have little against the guy. Since I don’t traffic heavily in SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) circles, I doubt I’d even have heard of him if it weren’t for this. I’m assuming he loves Christ, and I could even give him the benefit of the doubt that he did this for evangelistic reasons (rather than selfish gain). But, this has to stop. And the ‘good-ol-boy’s network’ needs to stop enabling him. You’re all making a mockery of Christianity. Please, stop.

In our own apologetic efforts, we can learn a few things from this case. First, don’t embellish your testimony, credentials, expertise, etc. God can use the real you more effectively than a fake you. Second, when you make a mistake, correct it and apologize honestly for damage you might have caused. Third, don’t get involved in these coverups of Christian brothers and sisters. Deal with people honestly and with as much grace as possible. But, don’t sacrifice the integrity of Christianity for power, money, or even simply trying to be a bit too nice. You aren’t really helping people who have gone astray by letting them get away with it.

While Ergun has been the focus here, the bigger problem is the Evangelical community being unwilling to engage, or worse, making the problem larger.

Turretinfan’s Ergun Caner Index
(Unfortunately, many of the original source links are now dead, as they were mp3 or video based. They were pulled down for some reason. Why were they pulled? If Ergun has nothing to hide… good question. It must have taken quite an effort to get all these 3rd parties to pull normal interviews and lectures from their libraries. Fortunately, a lot of these things have been downloaded before they were pulled. And, Turretinfan often created transcripts of the relevant details.)

A collection of public documents relating to Ergun Caner and his family history.
(It is SO sad that Ergun and company have take things so far as to require this kind of documentation and digging into his history.)

I know to some extent that such a division needs to exist, if for no other reason than legal liability. I’m talking here of the simple ease and extent to which so many make the distinction.

2.

⇡

You’ll note that we try to practice this here at TilledSoil.org, by constantly updating and correcting our articles. We usually even leave the incorrect information in place – though marked out – just for the sake of transparency, and so that corrective comments will make sense.

I’m also a bit baffled by his mention of ‘urban jungle’ so often. I don’t really think of Gahanna, or even Columbus, as an urban jungle. Maybe this is just a matter of perspective, as I’ve been in Chicago so many times, and have lived in larger metro areas like San Francisco and Vancouver. Besides, I’m not here to deny him whatever chic urban pastor image he might be going for.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/integrity-christian-apologetics-ergun-caner-case-study/feed/25The Resurrection of Jesus: Investigation & Apologetic Approachhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/resurrection-jesus-investigation-apologetic-approach/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/resurrection-jesus-investigation-apologetic-approach/#respondSat, 16 Nov 2013 04:19:21 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=804While Christians know Jesus lives, is it reasonable for them to believe in the Resurrection based on the evidence? A part 2 look at method.

“… God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.” (Acts 17:30–32 NASB)

I decided to move the evidence to a third part and spend a bit more time looking at how we go about this investigation, as well as some of the apologetic methods which approach this topic. For those too anxious to get to the evidence, please see the ‘Resources’ at the end of the article.

Last time, we looked at the presuppositions which often underlie the skeptic’s arguments put forth against Jesus’ Resurrection. Are they really neutral as portrayed? If one rules something out of possibility from the get-go, they exclude the very thing under investigation. If a police chief – upon hearing witnesses describe a 6-foot caucasian leaving the murder scene – tells the investigation team to find the killer, except ignore the testimony about ‘caucasian’ because we all know white people don’t murder, he won’t be seen as the noble skeptic, but more likely as part of some other nefarious, less than objective, group.

For the Christian, a presupposition or bias is also involved, as we have not only the historical evidence to consider, but the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, our experience with Jesus, and the revelation of God’s Word. I believe it is justified bias, but bias nonetheless. But as we learned last time, if you witnessed a crime, you’re biased, but that isn’t a bad thing. This is just to say that the average Christians typically doesn’t weigh the evidence for the Resurrection, arrive at a 52.3% likelihood, and thus become a convert. On the other hand, seeing how strong the evidence really is should bolster their faith and give skeptics pause.

In this segment I would like to take a look at some methods of weighing the evidence. This (or especially when we get to the data) will not be an exhaustive examination by any means. Entire books (many of them!) have been written on the subject, along with doctoral dissertations at prominent universities around the world. (1)Like Gary Habermas at Michigan State University, or William Lane Craig under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich I’m only going to scratch the surface, but I want to provide a taste of the evidence and look at the flow of argumentation to see why it is so powerful. I’m also not going to attempt to properly cite most of the information, as I’ve collected this stuff over the years from many of the figures I’ll list in the ‘Resources.’

Method

I see five major approaches to interpreting and conveying the data. The first is that of the Christian. Since a Christian has the inner testimony of the Holy Spirt, they recognize the truthfulness of the Biblical account and their Lord and Savior in its pages. They know Jesus lives, so the account makes sense. Recognizing the historical accuracy of the accounts, and how alternate attempts fail to explain the data, confirms their inner witness and experience. A sub-category of this would be the skeptic turned Christian, who feels the weight of this evidence played a role in the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, and thus, their conversion.

The second is a kind of ‘reliable witness’ apologetic method promoted throughout the history of Christianity, but probably most familiar in recent times through the work of Josh McDowell. The apostle Paul used this type of argument in 1 Cor. 15 in what is one of the earliest recordings of the event. Paul seems to be drawing from a credal statement which likely goes back to within months to a few years following the event. (2)About 25 years at max for Paul writing it down, according to Habermas; more likely about 18 years post-crucifixion. Paul is essentially pointing to witness testimony of the event in a ‘check it out and see’ type of way. This extends to today, where the Bible has been scrutinized more than any historical text and has come out looking great in terms of historical reliability and accuracy. Jesus makes claims of deity and what he will do and then backs them up. If everything we can test shows historical reliability, why toss what we can’t test, apart from an a priori rejection of the supernatural? Factor in the actions of Jesus’ disciples and the massive growth of the Christian church, and you almost have to conclude that something similar to the event happened. Worst case, Jesus’ early followers were tricked or delusional but something big certainly happened.

The third is a more recent ‘minimal facts’ method originated by Gary Habermas. This method basically says to the skeptic, “OK, for the sake of argument…” we’ll narrow the data down to some minimal points which even the most skeptical of the experts seem to agree upon. Then we can look and see what explanations seem plausible and which must be rejected. That should narrow things down, at minimum. Obviously, one can’t get to certainty, but that is true of anything historical. What we can do is figure out which explanations are reasonable, given the data, and drop the rest. If an explanation can’t cover the minimal data, there is little need to continue arguing about more controversial data.

A fourth approach would be what I’ll call ‘rejection of the supernatural.’ Many scholarly skeptics seem to fall into this camp. As Habermas pointed out in his research (and William Lane Craig has demonstrated in his debates), they agree about much of the historical data and its reliability, until they reach the resurrection itself. Much like the apostle Paul’s audience, they assume resurrections are impossible. (3)While we certainly have more technological tools to investigate things today, it is anachronistic to assume people in Jesus’ time were simple or easily fooled by stories of miracles. Just like today, some too readily believed, others investigated, and still others were presuppositionally skeptical. The difference is that Paul’s audience did not yet have philosopher David Hume to give such a position a veneer of scholarly credibility. It doesn’t matter how strong the evidence is, it could never be strong enough to prove something supernatural occurred to the satisfaction of one who holds this position.

The fifth is what I’d call ‘rejection from ignorance… or worse’ position. In my experience, this is the most common position within our culture today. Many are simply ignorant of the depth of Christianity’s claims and are too distracted to care. They’ve adopted a few memes which sound persuading enough to satisfy them. And since they are rarely challenged on their position, they believe they have rightly rejected some cultural baggage. This has the side benefit (or is it the driving force?) in some cases, of freeing them to chase desires which were taboo in previous generations, let alone to simply do other ‘better’ things with their time. This creates a situation where emotion is forbidding the intellect to take an honest look at the data. You’ll recognize this if you start hearing names like Horus and Osiris from the pseudo-scholars, or Sky-Fairies and Jewish-zombie from the obnoxiously arrogant. From the kinder sort, you’ll hear statements such as, “I’m glad that has meaning in your life, but I’m just not into that.”

It is worth noting that Gary Habermas’ doctoral dissertation had the following stipulation placed on it: “The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not use the New Testament as evidence, unless the individual passages could be affirmed by ordinary critical standards, apart from faith.” (4)http://www.garyhabermas.com/vitainnuce.htm And, of course, Gary did get his doctorate degree from that dissertation, so apparently, at least in the eyes of the faculty of Michigan State University, he must have met the criteria. If you fall into the last couple positions above, this might be an indicator you should take a more careful look.

Next time, we’ll take a look at some of the evidence and see how well it squares with various explanations.

Like Gary Habermas at Michigan State University, or William Lane Craig under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich

2.

⇡

About 25 years at max for Paul writing it down, according to Habermas; more likely about 18 years post-crucifixion.

3.

⇡

While we certainly have more technological tools to investigate things today, it is anachronistic to assume people in Jesus’ time were simple or easily fooled by stories of miracles. Just like today, some too readily believed, others investigated, and still others were presuppositionally skeptical.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/resurrection-jesus-investigation-apologetic-approach/feed/0But, I don’t have time for apologetics!http://www.tilledsoil.org/dont-time-apologetics/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/dont-time-apologetics/#respondSun, 15 Sep 2013 03:50:13 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=777You do have time for Christian apologetics, and you must get involved! Find out how and why you must begin today.

I often get the impression that people – even those already interested in apologetics – feel they just don’t have time for apologetics. It is as if I can ‘hear’ them thinking, “well, that is for you apologists, but the rest of us (with real lives) simply don’t have time for things like that.” What they may not realize, is that most apologists are ‘tentmakers,’ like the apostle Paul, supporting their missionary work through some other profession. Apologists are pretty busy too.

I can easily count the apologists who earn their living through apologetics work. All but a few have some other career which is their primary means of support. The church simply does not value apologetics enough at this point to fund it. One doesn’t just say, “I want to be an apologist when I grow up,” head off to school, and get hired into an apologetics job upon graduation.

This is not so much a complaint (here) as an insight; we love apologetics and we love the church, so we press on. It is simply the current reality, but an important one to recognize for the budding apologist. You are not going to get to some point in your life where becoming an apologist is easy, nor likely where someone pays you to do it. You just need to start NOW.

So, how then does a busy person become skilled at apologetics?

Leaning one’s craft seems to require three basic components: resources, time, and motivation. As the title of this article indicates, we’ll mostly focus on the time component, but I want to briefly address the others as well.

Resources

When I started learning about apologetics, resources were sparse and required far more effort to gather. There were a few books by authors such as Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell. Every now and then, one might run across an apologetics oriented discussion on some product or interest BBS forum (this was before the Internet). There were a few ministries with radio programs beginning to address the topic. A friend got me started by lending a few RC Sproul and White Horse Inn cassette tapes. I was hooked.

Today, resources abound! There are a lot more books and many of the ministries have podcasts. There are apologetics web sites everywhere, and even some insanely useful apologetics aggregators, such as Apologetics315 and The Poached Egg. Various apologists fill social media like Twitter and Facebook with streams of resources every day. The problem becomes almost opposite; there is now too much to keep up with. No excuses in this category!

Motivation

This category is key. This is the reason many of us have attended school at some point in our lives. Having that accountability in the form of money spent, or at least exams, keeps us focused on the goal. But, other motivations exist as well, such as a yearning to be a good disciple of Christ. There are communities of apologists who check in with one another, but it can certainly just be a friend from church. And while there may not be exams, if you start talking to people about your faith or teaching others, the pressure will soon be on to learn more.

Most people are pretty busy these days. Some are extremely busy. However, I don’t think that is a good excuse, and I’ll explain why. For roughly twenty years now, I’ve been loading apologetics knowledge into my mind. I’ve been a pretty busy person over that time; sometimes, insanely busy. For example, I’ve learned apologetics while running an IT consulting firm. I’ve learned apologetics while working a more than full-time job AND earning my BA, simultaneously. I continued to learn apologetics while in graduate school AND being a full-time dad to an infant and toddler, simultaneously.

The secret?

As you can imagine (or have first-hand knowledge of), when you’re that busy, you don’t have much time to read books or attend classes and conferences. But, I’ll bet you have time to listen to podcasts and lectures. I used my commute time when working away from home, and time doing laundry and dishes, etc. when working at home. For some jobs, you may even be able to learn while working.

You likely won’t learn things as quickly this way, but over time the knowledge will seep in as you are exposed to similar material over and over, and the materials begin to overlap. It is an opportunity to use such times more wisely which almost everyone has.

For this reason, we’re planning to start a podcast for TilledSoil.org. I would strongly suggest other apologetics ministries do so as well. It is a form of communication that is going to become increasingly utilized, and might be the only way you will reach a too-busy person.

The other issue for most of us is priorities. Even at my busiest points, I probably had at least a little time I could have devoted to learning apologetics which I chose to spend on something else. For the average person, this is quite a lot of time. How much time do you spend watching TV or movies, playing video games, or surfing the Internet? Many of us, aside from our busiest times, actually spend a great deal of time on activities we could dip into if we changed our priorities.

We don’t have time not to do apologetics!

In the world in which Christians find themselves today, skipping apologetics is simply not an option. Every Christian is called to be an apologist on some level. And yes, the Bible tell us so! But aside from that, we need to be persuasive in such a culture. Os Guinness notes that we have mostly lost this ability today. (2)WHI-1168 | The Case for Civility –http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2013/08/25/whi-1168-the-case-for-civility/ He says that many Christians (especially in America) don’t know how to persuade (classically, apologetics). They can preach, protest, proclaim, or pronounce, but they aren’t persuasive to the culture. Is it any wonder why the culture is going in the direction it is?

“We should not ask ‘what is wrong with the world?’ for that diagnosis has already been given. Rather, we should ask, ‘What has happened to the salt and light?'” — John Stott

I could give you page after page of quotes by prominent apologists, theologians, and church leaders about the urgent need for apologetics. The fact that you need to get involved should not be in question. I’m trying to help with the HOW.

Where do I start?

First, you are going to need a media player of some kind. While your computer will work just fine when you’re actually in front of it, to maximize learning in your spare-time, you’re going to need to be mobile – like ‘in your pocket’ mobile. If you are on a tight budget, you can find very inexpensive players, but this comes at a time-cost of being harder to manage. My recommendation would be investing in a tool such as an iPod touch or iPhone. This way you can get many more uses out of the device beyond our needs here. You can also do things like take text notes or audio memos of things you’re learning or reminders to re-listen to something later.

Subscribe to a couple of good podcasts to start. While I don’t want to discourage anyone from RC Sproul or the White Horse Inn where I began, I’d start with Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason podcast, or J. Warner Wallace’s PleaseConvinceMe podcast. Then, begin to branch off as you hear guests you like or discover other podcasts, being sure to add a variety of apologetic focuses (ie: theology, history, science, etc.)

Once you start getting comfortable with these, add in a podcast by a skeptic or start interacting on-line in some discussion. This will begin to show you where you are weak in what you have been learning. Begin to take opportunities to calmly discuss apologetics issues with people you meet. You’ll be surprised at how easy this is once you’ve begun to master the information. It is being uninformed and feeling cornered which bring out the tense and angry dialog (or, simple avoidance) I so often run into in such discussions.

You need to start somewhere and the time is now. The quality of your discipleship, and in some measure, the health of society, depends on your doing so.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/dont-time-apologetics/feed/0The Resurrection of Jesus: A Christian Apologetics Cornerstonehttp://www.tilledsoil.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-christian-apologetics-cornerstone/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-christian-apologetics-cornerstone/#commentsWed, 14 Aug 2013 17:43:42 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=734While Christians know Jesus lives, is it reasonable for them to believe in the Resurrection based on the evidence? A part 1 look at the logic.

]]>Jesus’ resurrection after his crucifixion and death is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. The apostle Paul, after giving an account (1 Cor 15) of this event, says that if it didn’t happen, the Christian religion is useless. He adds that, then, Christians should be most pitied because they are still in trouble with the God of the universe. But even on a practical note, it would seem that for people who spend a good portion of their time on Christian activities, that time could be much better spent.

Paul makes a pretty strong claim. And let’s face it, if Jesus is either myth or dead somewhere, the rest of our apologetics are pointless. And it wasn’t just Paul highlighting the importance of the resurrection; the other disciples based their case on the testimony of this event throughout their writings. Even Jesus points to the centrality of this event in Matthew 12:39-40. It is the KEY piece of evidence.

It is also an interesting claim in that it is historically grounded and testable in a unique way among world religions. The majority of world religions make no historical claims crucial to the religion. Sure, if Siddhartha Gautama never lived, it might throw a bit more skepticism on Buddhism, but it would have little impact on the truthfulness or falsity of the Buddhist worldview. Anyone could make similar claims about reality, which would need to be evaluated based on their own merit. Who made them, apart from this individual’s piety and sincerity (which might help credibility), is fairly irrelevant.

For a Christian who recognizes the nature of inspired Scripture, little more is needed. The claim of Jesus’ resurrection is well supported by the Biblical texts. But how are Christians supposed to respond to the challenges of the skeptics concerning this historical event? How can a Christian be sure this event happened as recorded?

First, a bit more about the Biblical witness. There is not room in this article for a strong defense of why Christians hold the Bible as the trustworthy (and usually inerrant) Word of God, nor is there room to get into topics like textual criticism, or detailed evidence and argument concerning historical reliability. (1)We cover those topics in other articles. However, we can argue from the historical evidence generally agreed upon by historians to make a very strong case. This kind of defense won’t get you all the way to certainty, but demonstrates the reasonableness, as well as the best-explanation nature of the historical claim. Rather than being crazy to believe, it becomes rather crazy not to.

Many skeptics immediately dismiss the Biblical account from the start. They say that since the Bible is the Christian text, it has to be tossed out based on bias. This is simply faulty reasoning. Let me give you an example to make this clear. Suppose you were a juror at a murder trial. The first witness is called; the wife of the victim. You listen to her testimony and hear the horrifying story as she recounts watching the fateful event. After she finishes, the judge instructs the jury to ignore this testimony, as the witness is biased. After all, she isn’t impartial because she believes the defendant murdered her husband!

The next witness is a bit different. He certainly was impartial initially. He didn’t know any of the people involved. But, he saw the defendant run from the victim’s home, bloody, with weapon in hand. He ran into the house and saw the victim, comforted the wife, and called for help. He can’t be 100-percent certain of what happened, but he’s fairly convinced he knows. Again, the judge strikes this testimony from evidence, citing bias. After all, he believes the defendant is guilty, so he is hardly impartial either.

Do you see the problem here? With this kind of reasoning, we would have to toss out all testimony-based history (which would be nearly everything). This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use our reason in evaluating the testimony. If we found out the wife recently took out a huge life-insurance policy, or discovered the second witness actually had a grudge against the victim, we’d probably have a different take on what bias might mean in those circumstances. Problematic bias doesn’t mean you’ve been convinced of something and are no longer neutral, but that you have an unreasonable disposition towards one conclusion.

Mike Licona and Greg Koukl make the point that if Christians can’t write history, Jews can’t write about the Holocaust, nor a feminist about women’s issues. If we throw out historians on the basis of bias (in that they believe something on the issue), there would be NONE. (2)Stand To Reason – 04/27/09 – “Mike Licona – Resurrection Myth Stories”

But even if we were to discount the Biblical testimony, the event would not run counter to the non-Biblical evidence. We just would’t have nearly the detail to go on – though we might still have enough to reach a fairly certain conclusion.

Making the Case

Unfortunately, we don’t have a time machine, and video recorders weren’t yet invented at the time of Christ. (3)I often wonder if skeptics would trust a video recording anyway, as they can be faked. We do have a lot of witness testimony and some archeological evidence to consider. The key is in how we go about evaluating this evidence. Most skeptics consider alternate explanations prematurely, which fail to match the overall evidence or even take the majority of it into consideration.

Gary Habermas states this clearly:

“… the more popular approach through the centuries has been to pose a naturalistic theory to account for the data. Such a move basically attempts to allow for historical facts where the evidence is the strongest, while veering off in a natural direction before getting to the punch line involving the resurrection. Here they need to propose an alternative scenario: ‘Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead. What really happened was (fill in the blank).’

However, this is probably the most difficult method of all. In fact, when faced with this option, the vast majority of critical scholars opt out. They are often well aware that when an option is chosen, the weight of the known historical facts comes crashing clown against their proposal. In fact, they are so well aware of this eventuality that only a few attempt it. Even among scholars, it is generally conceded that none of these options work.” (4)Gary Habermas, “The Case for Christ’s Resurrection.” In To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian World View, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland, 180-198. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/inbook_to-everyone-an-answer/habermas_case-for-xp-res.htm

And, we Christians need to appreciate that this debate is nothing new. The apostle Paul also faced an audience skeptical of resurrections. Mike Horton notes with his typical humor:

“Paul doesn’t say, ‘Yes they are; the dead are raised.’ He says, ‘If the dead are not raised, generally speaking, then Christ is not raised. But reverse that, if Christ is raised, then your universal a-priori is hooey.’ It’s amazing how many people with a scientific or historical mind will come to Christianity as if it were any other religion making subjective claims about how I feel and what is good for me and what I find useful, and will simply say, in a similar way, abstractly, resurrections don’t happen. As if people who use electric washers are the first people in the universe to ever have said the dead are not raised. Paul is saying, that is what folks are saying here. The problem is, you have a resurrection on your hands; deal with it.” (5)White Horse Inn – “What the Gospel Is & Why We Should Believe It, Part 2” – 2013-06-08

Now that we have set the ground-work for taking an honest look at the data, in part 2, we will take a look at the evidence and lines of historical argumentation, as well as the faults in some common alternate explanations. We’ll also look at what we could learn using non-Biblical testimony.

It is worth noting that a hyper-skeptical position exists which holds that the whole account is simply a myth based on past ‘dying and rising’ gods. This type of position has been thoroughly refuted within scholarship – even scholarship otherwise critical to Christianity – yet it can be quite popular within the general public and on Internet forums. See our other article which generally critiques this concept of parallels or look for the many great refutations by various scholars which get into the details.

Some resources:

“Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” – William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman debate. March 28, 2006 – College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts

]]>Why is it that Christian apologists have to deal with this topic so often? It seems that whenever I’m in discussion over just about ANY apologetics related topic, I’ll typically be challenged by someone over the topic of I.D. as a kind of ‘gotcha’ move. You see, < sarcasm > I must not be rational… after all, I (as a Christian) must believe the whole Intelligent Design thing, which IS NOT science. And, as we all know, if it isn’t science, it isn’t rational. < /sarcasm >

There are many problems here, such as their failure to deal with the original topic (diversion tactic, maybe?). But even if we chase this rabbit trail, we’ll soon find we’ve run into a wall. The ‘NOT science’ position won’t budge, and you will soon be served a generous helping of the Genetic Fallacy, along with sides of Guilt by Association and Circumstance Ad Hominem.

What they won’t typically do, is give you a good reason WHY intelligent design doesn’t qualify as science. This is because, for most people, their reaction and response have little to do with their understanding of science (or philosophy of science). Instead, the reactions come from a USA District Judge (John E. Jones III) who was so out of his depth in commenting on his 2005 decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover), that he simply copied what Eric Rothschild, the ACLU attorney, told him to say. From that point on, I’ve heard this, “Intelligent design is NOT science” being parroted by atheists and skeptics everywhere.

But every so often, you’ll come across someone who does give you some reasons. They will probably say something to the effect that intelligent design is not falsifiable, that it produces no peer-reviewed scientific results, or that it stops the advance of science. The first, even if it were true, is still a matter of debate in philosophy of science, the second is just plain false, and the third, silly.

These people don’t seem to understand that science is not some magical, master discipline that we’ve finally perfected in the last few decades by adding methodological naturalism to the mix. Science is simply a disciplined approach to uncovering the truth about the world around us, typically focused on the empirical. It is actually part of a set of overlapping disciplines with this common goal (for example, philosophy, which focuses more on rational argument and logic). How this goal and discipline is best accomplished is part of an ongoing debate within the philosophy of science. It seems few today, even among scientists, have much of this background knowledge.

For example, the constraint of falsifiability was made popular by Karl Popper but seems in opposition to Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm-shift view. Both were thrown into question by Imre Lakatos’ competing and progressive research program model of science. Paul Feyerabend would seem to throw all of these models into question. To put it simply, exactly how science should operate, isn’t nailed down.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, after discussing some of the proposed constraints placed on science over the years, had this to say:

“Observing methodological naturalism thus hamstrings science by precluding science from reaching what would be an enormously important truth about the world. It might be that, just as a result of this constraint, even the best science in the long run will wind up with false conclusions.”

Ultimately, it tends to come down to one’s metaphysical presuppositions. Methodological naturalism is NOT the neutral position it masquerades as. This became apparent in a recent debate between Dr. Michael Ruse and Dr. Fazale Rana over the origin of life. You can watch the entire event HERE, but skip to 2:04:11 and then to 2:16:27 and listen to Dr. Ruse’s answers to the audience questions. He would be willing to entertain intelligent design if we were talking about aliens, but not something supernatural. He then admits that his primary problem with supernatural is the problem of evil. The problem isn’t science here folks!

I’ve often posed a related challenge in return when I’ve faced the intelligent design is not science claim. Most scientist-types love SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence). The problem is, how can SETI be science if intelligent design is not, as both are looking for intelligence within naturalistic data. If intelligence and information content cannot be adequately detected, then how will these people know if they ever find E.T.? I have never gotten a serious response to this, having posed it for years, until recently.

An atheist pointed me to this article by Seth Shostak of SETI Institute. In it, he argues that intelligent design proponents are misguided in making such a comparison because, 1) they don’t understand what SETI is really looking for, and 2) what SETI is looking for isn’t complex, but artificial.

His first point has a bit of weight, as there may be some confusion here. SETI isn’t to the stage in their investigation that intelligent design researchers are, in that SETI is still looking for something to actually look at! So, yes, at this point, they simply are looking for ‘artificial’ narrow-band signals which would be ‘carriers’ to the actual data they WOULD certainly analyze if they ever find one. When I (or other ID proponents) make the parallel, it is future analysis of such a find we’re referring to, primarily.

Further, he seems to have confused the term ‘complexity’ with what William Dembski really means when using it. He says that what SETI is looking for is actually not complex, but a simple, “organized and optimized” signal found within an unexpected environment, or “out of context.” While organized and optimized certainly sound rather designed to me, let’s compare this to what Dembski is really saying:

“Thus in general, given an event, object, or structure, to convince ourselves that it is designed we need to show that it is improbable (i.e., complex) and suitably patterned (i.e., specified). … The ‘complexity’ in ‘specified complexity’ is a measure of improbability.”

Isn’t ‘suitably patterned’ a bit like ‘organized and optimized,’ and ‘out of context’ a bit like ‘improbable?’ These two concepts sure sound similar to me… and I guarantee that if they ever find that carrier, the complexity will go up a great deal and what they will be, then, looking for will be quite the same: information. And information means author or designer, whether God or E.T.

But, what really puts the nail in the coffin (2)Just in case this ends up in translation… A figure of speech or idiom, meaning ‘put an end to’ (the argument)… ie. it’s dead! , is taking a look at SETI’s FAQ page. For example, they say, “Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced.” So, let’s apply methodological naturalism in a similar manner to how it is imposed on intelligent design. Since they can’t, then, infer E.T. as the author for such a signal, they are going to have to give in to SETI being non-science, start using the term ‘faith’ (3)incorrectly, but in line with how skeptics often use it a bit more, and start defending themselves against ‘E.T. of the gaps’ accusations.

Bottom line: Whether ID is science or not is a matter of philosophy and worldview, not the opinion of scientists and rogue judges.

Be aware though, this matters not just for the debate between Christian apologists and skeptics. As Plantinga pointed to above, this matters for science too. If you force science into a false worldview, you end up with false science. For example, until the last year or so, Darwinists were headed in the wrong direction when considering DNA function with the now defunct concept of Junk-DNA. Their false worldview lead them to impose this idea on their science, and now they are back-peddling, or rather, trying to pretend the new functionality fits their model and get you to ignore what they previously said. And don’t forget, such an error has real-world implications, such as delayed medical advances.

It isn’t religion that impedes science, but the imposition of a faulty worldview on it.

]]>Despite a relatively low amount of media coverage, you have likely run across the case of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor (labeled a monster) who ran what many have called a ‘house of horrors’ abortion mill. Last month, he was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter, and was sentenced to life in prison. But, given typical pro-choice sentiments, one has to wonder: what was the real problem leading to such public outrage?

On my worldview – that of Christianity – Kermit Gosnell certainly is a monster and his lair a definite house of horrors. If you can stomach it, do a quick web search and read a bit of the laundry list of charges against him, as well as the history of this ‘clinic.’ Yet, on the worldview of the pro-choice advocate, what was the big problem? What about this case caused almost universal exclamations of horror? Was it the unsanitary conditions at the clinic? Was it people without proper license to perform certain procedures or administer medications? Was it that he crossed a seemingly arbitrary line our legal system has drawn concerning when it is OK to kill a baby?

No, I think it is because this case brought a glimpse of reality out from underneath the rhetoric and medical terminology being thrown back and fourth in the abortion debate. I don’t just mean that we realized there might be others like Kermit Gosnell out there; that seems certain. I mean that we came face to face with the issue of how we are treating other humans. Going back just a bit in history, I’m sure it was one thing to debate over national superiority and ethnic purity, but quite another to discover Auschwitz. This case has brought the reality of abortion into the public eye in a visceral way.

It has also exposed the shambles of our legal status surrounding the issue. The media didn’t seem to know what to do with it. The pro-choice camp knew they had to react somehow, but didn’t know quite what to say. The rest of us stared on in horror. It opens the way to start asking some serious questions about where we are really headed as a society.

Why is killing a baby post-birth so horrifying, if pre-birth is not? Is it just because we can see it happen? Why is there the legal difference in the protection of this baby over a slight change in location and minutes of time? I am unaware that science has uncovered a special gland in the birth cannel which secretes human-rights enzymes. The absurdity of this legal reality becomes more clear than when two people are bantering over an infant vs a ‘clump of cells.’

It would seem that we are caught in transition between two opposing value systems, and our law reflects this. We need to help others face this reality and this case can help. On the Judeo-Christian worldview, human rights are intrinsic and come from being made in the image of God. Or, as the founders of the United States put it, inalienable rights endowed by our creator. No need for human-rights enzymes, nor to be granted by some governing body on this view. If you are human, you have them.

But, when this worldview gives way to secularism, what remains, as far as I can see, is a utilitarian basis at best. What defines human value, is decided by someone in power, whether individual or government. Rights are then conferred, based on some criteria. What we have currently seems to be a legal-kludge attempting to bridge the chasm. The discrepancies are glaringly obvious if one only take the time to look!

In the case of abortion, rights are granted to the baby by the mother and her doctor, depending on her want of the baby up until some arbitrary point in time, depending on the jurisdiction. After this, the government grants rights to this baby, after which the mother and/or doctor can be held accountable for not recognizing those rights, with the greatest severity of punishment for failure to do so. Whatever this is, it is certainly not, inalienable rights endowed by our creator. It seems more like insanity.

Where is this all headed? I think we can gain some hints by looking at the current discussions in medial ethics. For example, just quickly scan this list of topics in the May 2013, Journal of Medial Ethics. And if infanticide doesn’t scare you, or you doubt this utilitarian slide, consider what is happening at the other end of the life-spectrum. The more entrenched this alternate worldview becomes, the harder it will be to reverse. The time to start pushing back from all angles is now. I think the Gosnell case presents a good starting point if you have been struggling to engage in this issue.

Why is this relevant to the Christian apologist? First, because it is a hot-button cultural issue. Often, Christians will be labeled as the crazy ones opposing the progress of women’s rights. So, in order to get to the Gospel, this issue often needs to be answered and moved out of the way. Christians have been historically at the forefront of women’s rights. We’re just concerned about the youngest women (and men) too! Second, Christian apologists need to join in the effort to inform everyone on pushing for cultural change. We aren’t exempt from being salt and light. This issue is THE human-rights issue of our day, and we apologists need to be right on the front-lines.

Note: We will be discussing the topic of abortion at length in future articles, including challenges from the pro-choice position and answers from the Christian worldview.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/abortion-mills-and-kermit-gosnell-what-is-the-real-problem/feed/0In Christ Alone: A Great Contemporary Hymn Examplehttp://www.tilledsoil.org/in-christ-alone-a-great-contemporary-hymn-example/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/in-christ-alone-a-great-contemporary-hymn-example/#respondThu, 25 Apr 2013 08:10:03 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=679Join in as we look at the state of contemporary Christian worship music and take a look at an example of a great modern hymn.

]]>On Easter Sunday, the congregation we were worshiping with sang some music which I wanted to highlight as an excellent example of a modern hymn. Please listen to the following hymn a time or two: possibly once just to enjoy it and a second time to pay special attention to the lyrics and structure.

I love music, especially Christian music. I’m a fan of the contemporary as well as the past. I grew up in a home filled with music, as my mother loved to play piano and organ. My sister and I both took an interest at a young age.

I spent a considerable amount of time during grade-school and high-school practicing and playing in band (baritone horn). Following high-school, I played in a number of contemporary Christian music and worship groups. I note this, because I’m about to make a rather harsh critique of much of this ‘scene.’

I find modern Christian worship music, as a whole, rather lacking. This, unfortunately, includes a lot of what I’ve played over the years in these music groups. Much of it is catchy and entertaining, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of it seriously lacks depth and especially theological accuracy and consistency. (1)Our motivations weren’t focused on that aspect, to be fair. We were often more concerned with misguided evangelistic efforts than the worship itself. A good bit of it is also more performance oriented, making it hard for the congregation to participate in. (The latter is something I wanted to mention, but won’t be the focus of this article.)

There are many reasons for this deficiency in modern worship music. Some of them are beyond the control of most of us, or at least quite difficult to influence. But, I want to look at a couple of them, over which we have very direct control.

First, there is a problem of discernment. All Christian music doesn’t have to have the kind of depth I am talking about. I grew up on the pop music of the 70’s and 80’s. I love much of that stuff, despite the lack of depth. I love to listen to contemporary Christian music while driving around in the car or working on the website, for example. But, every Christian song should not be used for worship! It is not the fault of the artist in writing it, when the music director and/or pastor should know better than to use it for that purpose. (2)Granted, the artists or at least their representatives, do often push a lot of questionable material into worship resources.

In light of this, we come to the second reason, lack of oversight (by said pastor or elders). The worship service should be overseen by someone with the training to implement such discernment. The lack of this oversight, again unfortunately, stemmed largely from the ‘worship wars’ in my experience. Contemporary worship services often became independent and somewhat renegade in nature, with little involvement and oversight by trained leadership. Depth and theological accuracy were seldom high on the list of selection criteria. (3)See note 1.

Of course, this does not mean you’re safe so long as you stick with old songs or even hymnals – though the latter has at least some manner of vetting. In most hymnals I’ve seen, there are a number of entries which should be seldom, if ever utilized. In the same Easter service I mentioned above, the congregation also happily sang “He Lives!” Maybe being an apologist spoils this one for me, but I hope that isn’t how folks answer that question!

In contrast to a lot of contemporary Christian worship music, “In Christ Alone” already stands as one of Christianity’s great Easter (or anytime, for that matter) hymns. I just wish more worship leaders and pastors were aware of it (and other such quality works). It certainly begins with more careful discernment and oversight in the worship planning process. Start with a web search for Keith and Kristyn Getty and Stuart Townend. “In Christ Alone” isn’t their sole great work. Here is Keith talking a bit about the writing process for another of their songs:

.

Another thing I like about “In Christ Alone” is the build to the Resurrection of Jesus. This is as it should be, as the Resurrection is the pinnacle of Christianity (Easter or not), both theologically and in apologetics. We are currently writing a ‘foundation’ article to cover an apologetic defense of this wonderful and critical event for Christianity. Keep an eye out for this in the near future.

Martin Luther, the famous reformer, considered music second only to theology:

“I am not ashamed to confess publicly that next to theology there is no art which is the equal of music, for she alone, after theology, can do what otherwise only theology can accomplish, namely, quiet and cheer up the soul of man…” – Martin Luther (4)Essays on Martin Luther’s Theology of Music by Mark Sooy

I think we all experientially know this to be the case in terms of the disposition of our soul. But, we also quickly recognize how it affects us in terms of our memorization. Consider all the songs you can sing along with and nearly, if not perfectly, recite every single word. You probably didn’t expend much effort in doing so either. How many of the concepts and ideas expressed within these songs and lyrics have seeped into how we view the world? Are we even aware of this? As Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (aomin.org) often says, “Theology matters!” If our worship music isn’t helping fill our minds with theologically sound concepts and Scripture, what IS it filling them with? It isn’t a matter of IF.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/in-christ-alone-a-great-contemporary-hymn-example/feed/0Has the Church Become an Atheist Incubator?http://www.tilledsoil.org/has-the-church-become-an-atheist-incubator/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/has-the-church-become-an-atheist-incubator/#respondFri, 15 Feb 2013 06:36:07 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=616Is the church up to the task of disciple creation? Or, is it merely incubating the next generation of atheists, unbelievers, & cultural 'Christians'?

]]>I suppose I should first apologize for baiting you into reading this article with a catchy title. No, I don’t actually suspect the church is creating a huge number of atheists, as there simply aren’t that many of them (as vocal as they may be!). While their numbers are on the rise, they are statistically few. What I am going to argue the church is often creating, might be better called: apathetic unbelievers or quasi-believers who might retain some form of ‘spirituality.’ That, however, would have made for a long, boring title. But, I think that this is just as bad, maybe worse, than if these people were becoming atheists.

Before I get started (especially considering it is Valentine’s Day!), I do want to make it clear that I love the church. As one of my former professors used to say, be careful what you say about Christ’s fiancé! (1)Maxine Hancock of Regent College I just think the church has become quite distracted, lazy, and sick. I, like most apologists, want to help revive and heal her!

If you have been paying any attention over the last several years, you have probably heard that youth are leaving the church in droves. (Note: I’m talking about North America and Europe. The church is rapidly growing in many other parts of the world.) Much ink – and electrons – have been spilled over what the numbers are, but suffice it to say, too many! More conservative church studies set the figure high and are excited over the problem, seeing these as a total loss. Many sociologists put the figure considerably lower, as they claim this is a trend that has been happening for quite some time, and in the end, these leaving-youth return as adults with their families in tow.

It is true that many do return. The sociologists have a point. Yet, it would be nice to keep our young adults, so that there is no exodus and return in the first place. But more important is what this return looks like for the ones who come back. (Even if we weren’t concerned about the ones who never come back.) This is where I think the sociological studies have been failing and the concern of the alarm-sounding Christian leaders is warranted. If their faith is undermined and their trust of their former church experience shaken, what kinds of churches and beliefs do these people return to? They will probably still check the ‘Christian’ box on the survey, but what kind of Christianity will it be?

I actually think the decline in the number of believers we see in the surveys has actually happened some time ago. People are simply being more honest as there is less social repercussion in doing so today.

The Fall of Christian Education

“I’ll never forget the look on the Sunday-school superintendent’s face when I took my son – a 2nd grade Sunday-schooler – withdrew him from the Sunday-school. I took a look at what he had colored that morning and it was a picture of a Midwestern backyard where there was leaves all over the place and a rake leaned against the garage and you could see mother with a stack of dishes, washing dishes. And the caption underneath it was, ‘What do you think Johnny could do right now to show how much he loves Jesus.’ And, I said, ‘That’s it! He’s out.’ And the blessed little lady said, ‘Do you mind telling me why you want your son out of our Sunday-school?’ And, I said, ‘Because you’re going to make an atheist out of him; it’s just going to take a few years.’ And, she had no idea what that was about, but Sunday-school can be dangerous.” – Dr. Rod Rosenbladt (3)Dr. Rod Rosenbladt on The White Horse Inn – “Whatever Happened to Bible Study?” – 10/07/2012

I suppose many will read that and think it overly harsh. If you’ve listened to Rod, you’ll know he doesn’t pull punches, yet has a great sense of humor. (4)I’ve heard it said he embodies the spirit of Martin Luther as well as anyone alive today. Humor or not, I think it gets us started on the conversation. I pulled a basic 2nd-grade objectives and curriculum from Scholastic:

Now, seriously ask yourself; how do you think the typical 2nd-grade Sunday-school curriculum and effort compares? Not very well! But, things are even worse. Unless parents are equipped to educated their children with some depth in Christianity, we’re talking about only an hour, maybe two at best, per week. Even the best curriculum can’t solve that kind of problem, though a good one would at least be a start.

So, we turn to the status of adult eduction. How well does it fare? Unless you’re a highly motivated adult Christian learner in a church blessed with resources, you probably know the answer to this rhetorical question. If the surveys we keep hearing hold any water, it quickly becomes clear that most people, even those claiming the Christian title, can’t answer the most basic questions about what Christianity is all about. How are such people going to instruct their children in the faith, let alone help them address the questions and challenges they will face in their most formative years?

The Exile of Children from Worship

One (controversial) issue I would like to put on the table for discussion is the move from children in worship to children in daycare, sunday school, youth-church, etc. This is something our own family has struggled with since our son was born. I grew up IN church/worship, as did nearly everyone from a churched family just a couple of generations ago.

Why the change? I’m sure it was motivated by practicality and good intentions. However, I’m skeptical it was well thought through and grounded in Biblical principals. Thomas Bergler, author of “The Juvenilization of American Christianity” argues that the whole category of adolescent started in the 1940s. This was when a majority of young adults graduated high-school and marketing began to this age-group specifically. He says that the Roman Catholic church had created a ‘ghetto’ about as effectively as anyone at the time, and was losing the youth in large numbers. Evangelicals picked up many of them by starting youth groups. (5)“A Juvenile Church?” – White Horse Inn – 08-05-2012

I also believe changes to the worship service, shortened services and attention spans, as well as seeker-sensitive initiatives all played an important role. If people won’t come to education opportunities, should we move it primarily into worship time? If worship time becomes more about education we’re familiar with in school, should we divide into age-groups? If worship is about evangelization in an entertainment and day-care culture, should we respond by offering child-care, entertainment-like worship, and a unique experience for the kids?

And, at what cost? Have we divided the family up too much? (In a culture where there is already much division.) Didn’t Jesus welcome the distraction of the children and scold the disciples for not including them? Do our kids do Sunday school, youth-group, then ‘graduate’ church? Have they been welcomed (or do they feel welcomed) to be an integral part of the body for the whole life of the church? Is the concept of segregated worship Biblical?

It is my opinion that we need a serious examination of how we are ‘doing church.’ (This extends to the ‘lowest common denominator’ or ‘fill the room and aim low’ approach too. a good read would be Greg Ogden’s “Transforming Discipleship: Making Disciples a Few at a Time.”)

On the flip side, for children to be involved, parenting needs to be ratcheted up a bit. When I do see children in worship today (like Family Sunday), it quickly becomes clear the children have no practice at attending any such events. And, if the child is throwing a tantrum, it might be time to take them out for a bit. Some common sense goes a long-way here. Your grandparents, maybe even parents, figured out how to make it work.

What Can We Do?

The big question, then, which we need to ask is not, “How do we get people to church?” but instead, “What are we doing with those we already have?”

Should we get rid of youth ministries? Not at all. But, we do need to re-think them a bit. We need a middle of the road approach. The past often had too little focus on children, to which our current state was an over-reaction. As Bergler points out, youth ministries need to be thought of as a ministry of the entire church. Rather than cater to youth as the main focus, the goal should be on helping youth integrate into the church body (worship included!). Note carefully: This doesn’t just apply to the youth. The older folks often need to be integrated with the young ones too!

We also need to be careful we aren’t underselling our youth. They are often quite interested and hungry to ask the tough questions they are facing and get good, honest answers. And, while they do like to have fun, we must realize they can probably find better parties elsewhere. They need to realize they are there for a much more important reason.

That weight of importance needs to be felt. Watering things down simply backfires. David Aikman notes, “Well, it’s a paradox that even as young people all over the world tend to go in a sort of ethically and morally liberal direction, they are always attracted by movements that demand firm standards of behavior and performance. They find that much more attractive than watering down anything.” (6)Line of Fire – Dr. Michael Brown – “Dr. Brown Interviews David Aikman” – 11/19/2012 I can think of one religious movement in particular that has done a good job of not watering things down and requires strict disciplines and behavior; Islam.

J. Warner Wallace often emphasizes the importance of training vs teaching. We all know this from our school days. If there isn’t some exam coming up, we tend to slack off. We need to provide training FOR something, to motivate ourselves so learn. This might be something like setting up a youth-trip to witness to atheists or Mormons, or as simple as engaging the culture, which will undoubtedly push us to learn more.

“If someone doesn’t think they need apologetics, one has to wonder if they have tried evangelizing lately.” – Bobby Conway (7)Bobby Conway on Apologetics315 – 08/26/2012

The Role of Apologetics

It is no secret that we are rapidly heading into a more skeptical, if not hostile, culture towards Christianity. We’re Biblically commanded to be prepared to give an answer for our Christian hope (1 Peter 3:15 among others). This applies, as above, to nearly any evangelistic situation today. However, while evangelism seems to be a gifting, ALL Christians are called to be apologists. Yet, few of our churches offer any apologetics training. This needs to change, not only for evangelism, but internally to give our faith meaning, depth, and stability. I’m pretty convinced that the church will not be turned around without it.

The Critical Role of Adult Education and Equipped Parents

My final degree-work was focused on this question of how to equip and repair the church. I went through a lot of the work of both sociologists and church leaders on the problem and solutions. One big thing jumped out at me by the end, which became my thesis: “While apologetic training of youth directly is a very important task, apologetic training of parents and adults in our churches is an even more pressing need and a big part of the solution to restore ‘health’ back to the North American church.” (8)Steve Wilkinson, “Triage and Healing through Christian Apologetics: Or How to ‘Heal’ a ‘Sick’ Church.” – Comprehensive exam paper for Regent College

It’s intuitive really. Parents, influence children’s faith outcomes by a wide margin over other influences. I’m not simply talking about Dawkins’ fear of the fundamentalist homes churning out fundamentalist children. Instead, this includes factors like the importance of Christianity to the parents and how they lived their lives in light of it. Though the sociological data gets a bit more sparse when it comes to specific educational markers, it certainly includes the PARENTS ability to pass on the details of the faith and answer challenges to it.

Christianity Does Actually Make a Difference

I also think it would be good to feed our practical side and properly recognize that Christianity does indeed make a difference. All too often, it is repeated that Christians live just as poorly as the culture around them. Their divorce rates are just as high (or higher), their kids get into the same kinds of trouble, etc. We even hear this from the pulpit.

The problem is, this just isn’t true! While it is true that sanctification is a process that won’t be complete until the hereafter, statistically, it isn’t true that Christians are, in whole, as bad as everyone else. If even somewhat meaningful criteria are used to determine Christ-followers, their behavior is statistically different. The problem is that what is called Christianity by the polls and media is really cultural Christianity, not the real thing. Check out John Stackhouse’s excellent article on the subject. (9)“What Scandal? Whose Conscience?” by John G. Stackhouse, Jr.

]]>If you are within reasonable travel distance of the Vancouver, BC, Canada area (maybe even if you aren’t), you need to make it to this Christian apologetics conference. Save the dates of March 1st & 2nd, 2013 @ Northview Community Church in Abbotsford, B.C. The church is in dire need of people like you, who might have an interest in apologetics (case-making), to get trained-up as best you can and take that knowledge back to your local church (and, of course, our aim at TilledSoil.org is to assist you in that goal if you would like).

I have immensely enjoyed the previous two conferences, and this one looks to be no exception. Speakers include: Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Andy Bannister, M.D. John Patrick, and J. Warner Wallace. There are also well over a dozen break-out sessions so you can maximize your education and experience to meet your needs. We’re looking forward to it and are proud to be a sponsor. But, I think the part we look forward to most, is meeting all our fellow apologists, and experiencing the excitement of Christians being exposed, often for the first time, to the fact that there is a solid foundation to their faith. That excitement kind of energizes us to do our work for the rest of the year!

You can (and should) watch previous years conferences on the Apologetics Canada YouTube channel HERE. But, if you attend the conference, not only will you get to meet these great speakers, as well as fellow apologists, you’ll also get to attend some of the excellent break-out sessions. I would HIGHLY recommend you at least watch Jim Warner Wallace’s “God’s Crime Scene” as Jim will again be at this upcoming conference. He also has a book coming out very soon which will be an apologetics MUST READ! “Cold-Case Christianity”

Here is a recent review of it by one of my apologist colleagues, J.W. Wartick. It looks like it is going to become one of the best books on the historicity of the Gospels. It is also going to open a lot of eyes to the power of circumstantial evidence (which is often misunderstood). If that doesn’t convince you, just check out the endorsements! (Hey, where is my autographed copy, Jim??? Just kidding! (1)And, those of you who know me, know I’ll do my reading of it on the e-book version. Autographed copies are nice keepsakes though, and look nice on the bookshelf.)

]]>Metamorphosis is a video (available in DVD and Blu-ray formats) by Illustra Media about the amazing biological transformation process from caterpillar to butterfly. The main feature is a little over an hour long and there is a good amount of bonus material. The main feature is so packed with information, that this review is only going to scratch the surface. I am not a biologist, so my critique of the presented biological information will be limited. That said, I cannot imagine that being further educated in such a discipline would make the information presented any less astonishing.

Even though most of us will be unable to fully appreciate the biology involved, the filming and production, the astounding beauty of the subject matter – right down to the soundtrack – is incredible. This is a film the whole family can enjoy. My first viewing was with our family and even our toddler enjoyed it. As for the educational content, initially one might falsely assume it is going to be a bit overblown and ‘cheesy’ given some of the opening statements made by the scientists being interviewed… but, they then backup those claims in a big way. This film should push anyone to respond similarly. Wow, just WOW!… might be a good reaction.

I will not attempt a point by point or theme by theme review of this material presented. Briefly, the film highlights the amazing capabilities of the butterfly and follows the metamorphosis process. Instead, I’ll give you a summary of a few of the points which struck me as most important and leave you with a strong recommendation to see the film.

Butterflies are amazingly equipped creatures. One of the first points the film makes is that each species of butterfly lays eggs on a particular species of plant. They can detect the host plant by scent from miles away. They then tell visually by leaf-shape to identify the plant among the other flora. Finally, they taste to be certain. This is important, for if the eggs end up on the wrong species of plant, the caterpillars will die. This is but one brief aspect of their vast ability. The most amazing aspect of butterflies, however, might be something over which they have no control; the metamorphosis transformation from caterpillar to butterfly.

On a first glance, the metamorphosis process might seem simple. The caterpillar builds the chrysalis and out pops a butterfly. However, what is actually taking place is incredibly complex and has implications for the heated debate between naturalistic evolution and intelligent design. For example, the chrysalis is more like a structural mold for the forming body parts than a shapeless mass coving the whole process. Many of the caterpillar cells are actually dissolved in the process, with the raw materials being reused. Larval cells are dissolved while imaginal cells are transformed. Some components and organs are completely reworked. For example, the eye in the caterpillar is a simple light sensor, while the eye of the butterfly is a highly complex compound eye which sees infrared through ultraviolet. Reproductive organs are built and the digestive tract is reworked for a different type of food source. Much of the film breaks out this brief description in detail, using electron microscope imagery, computer animation, and amazing cinematography to illustrate the points.

The big catch here, is that while the stages seem like completely different creatures, the caterpillar and butterfly are one organism. The caterpillar has no reproductive organs. The butterfly lays the eggs. When the caterpillar enters the chrysalis and ‘dissolves’ it is a suicidal move if the information isn’t there to properly complete the process. It’s the old chicken and egg problem to the Nth degree. Natural selection is not forward thinking. From a naturalistic viewpoint, there would need to be some other explanation for how we get butterflies and metamorphosis than small incremental evolutionary steps.

As an aside, this documentary does not cover objections to the intelligent design conclusion concerning metamorphosis. However the Discovery Institute offers a fairly in-depth analysis of such critiques, which appear to be few. As I always recommend to apologists, take a look at what the opposition is saying. I did this, albeit briefly in comparison to what a trained biologist might be able to, and found only one thorough treatment from an evolutionary vantage point. (1)Truman, J. W. and L. M. Riddiford, 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401: 447-452. PDF here: http://129.123.92.202/biol5530/truman99.pdf Everything else I found referenced this work (often just footnoting it in a ‘case closed’ manner with little-to-no analysis). The Discovery Institute resource (which I actually discovered during this research) critiques this evolutionary paper, making some of the points that struck me as I tried to understand it with my lay-level knowledge of biology. (That makes one feel good!)

In brief, the evolutionary explanation is that the butterfly and caterpillar appeared in a much more basic form before the metamorphosis process entered the picture (many insects go through a larval to adult transformation). The specialization which this process might add to each stage (so the caterpillar would’t compete for food sources, for example, as the caterpillar and butterfly eat different things) drove the change. A number of molts which would normally take place in the transition to the adult are compressed (by a hormone) into one rapid chrysalis stage. This essentially gets rid of the forward-stepping problem, as the genetic information and body-plans already exist.

Lacking actual evidence, this strikes me as quite the “just so story” if there ever was one. Evolutionists seem to make this type of flimsy argument constantly. If B is better than A, A must have preceded B, and furthermore A transformed into B. Natural selection often seems to gain some kind of magical planning ability to produce the better. It also often seems to be able to produce myriad successful changes all in one go. But definitely investigate the Discovery Institute supplementary material I referred to above for the detailed problems with the Truman and Riddiford paper.

Showcasing more amazing abilities of this fascinating creature, the film shifts to the journey of the Monarch butterfly. This 2500 mile migration from the northern USA and Canada to a few small locations in central Mexico occurs because these tropical creatures cannot weather the winter. They return to the north because the milkweed is their host plant. (Note: The milkweed contains toxins which the caterpillar stores in its skin. These toxins make it taste really bad to predators in the butterfly stage, and is indicated by their color and markings.)

While it is amazing to me that such a tiny, seemingly fragile creature, can make such an incredible journey in the first place (they travel about 50 miles per day), some of the details are shocking. First is their level of navigation which gets them to a few small forested locations on a trans-volcanic mountain range. (The scenes of millions of butterflies in a small forest area alone make this film worth seeing!) What makes this really remarkable is that none of them have made the journey before; not even their parents. Most Monarch butterflies only live between 2 and 4 weeks. But, the August generation is genetically programmed to live up to 9 months, which allows them to make the journey, endure winter, and begin the return trip. Yet, each year, the Monarchs end up in the same forest range even though the last to be there were several generations back.

A final point which adds weight to the design argument, but which also touches on our intuitive and aesthetic side, is the beauty of butterflies. As noted in the film, we typically associate things like planning, foresight, artistry, and engineering as signs of intelligence. Butterfly artistry goes far beyond survival. Our universal, common experience would tell us this, yet we are told to ignore this because the naturalistic presupposition needs to rule this out. Note however: this is philosophy or religion, not science, being imposed to reach such a conclusion.

In conclusion, this is simply an awesome production in every aspect. If you couldn’t care less about the science or apologetic implications, you’ll still enjoy these beautiful creatures, scenery, and soundtrack. If you do care about the science involved or the apologetic implications, this is a must see addition to your library. It makes a very strong case for the intelligent design position without overly pushing this aspect throughout the film. Opening the details of metamorphosis to us (as well as the artistry) shouts this message loud and clear on its own.

Disclosure: I received a free review copy of this media from the publisher. I was under no obligation as to the nature or content of this review. The opinions expressed are my own. My thanks to the publisher for providing it.

]]>A common challenge Christian apologists face concerns the atheist’s claim that God doesn’t exist. A more specific variety of this challenge was recently posed by a TilledSoil.org reader concerning an atheist’s use of Russell’s teapot analogy for the non-existence of God.

Here is an extract of Bertrand Russell giving the analogy:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.” -Bertrand Russell (1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

One point to keep in mind is how similar this analogy is to the now infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) used by the “new atheists.” They essentially push Russell’s teapot to the absurd and apply it in a very irreverent way, which seems to be one of the chief hallmarks making the new atheists, new. (Note: It originally served as a kind of mocking rebuttal to the intelligent design movement when the trials were underway in Kansas. The idea was to give an example considered analogous to what ID proponents were proposing. As William Lane Craig points out, this is interesting because William Dembski shot down such a concept over a year before the FSM was proposed by Henderson. He notes that Dembski might have used something like the FSM to support the non-religious nature of ID, had he thought of it first. (2)http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster) By the way, the FSM is pretty easy to defeat, should anyone push it staying in character as a follower, if for no other reason than its originator says he made it up. (3)http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm

First, consider the way in which the question is being posed. Russell’s argument really isn’t FOR the non-existence of God, but AGAINST having to prove God doesn’t exist (on the part of the atheist). In other words, when a claim for something is made (the existence of the teapot or God), the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So, when a Christian makes the claim that there is a God, they have the burden of proof, not the atheist. Russell uses the teapot analogy in an attempt to show the absurdity of putting the burden on the atheist.

Since one can not prove a universal negative (as this would require universal knowledge; a.k.a. omniscience), Russell is saying that if there is something for which there is no evidence, the person denying it can’t possibly prove it. Richard Dawkins makes a similar point:

“Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.” (4)http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/

I suppose I would have to agree with Russell (and Dawkins). The problem is not with his example, but with the conclusion he draws from the analogy and the accuracy of the analogy.

For example, let’s say that when we sent a satellite up with some instruments, we found traces of tea in an elliptical orbit. Even if we could not, then, directly observe such a teapot, it would be at least a reasonable hypothesis to consider the existence of such a teapot as the source of this tea (among other possible explanations). Also, in this case, I would say that the a-teapot-ists might carry some burden of proof for a plausible explanation of the tea, aside from “it just is.” (Especially if we had good reason to believe that tea came into existence at some point, not existing eternally.)

Another problem with the analogy is the comparison of something fairly trivial and non-sensical to something like deity (theism vs atheism). This is a huge, foundational category. It is in the logical category of A or not-A upon which entire worldviews hang. It can also be argued that many things rest on the distinction between the two categories, such as logic itself or objective morality. The existence of an orbital teapot has no such significance.

In other words, when we speak of God, we’re not talking about proposal with no evidence! (As is presumed with the teapot and FSM analogies.)

I also like what one of my local colleagues, Dr. Paul Chamberlain, said in the Wikipedia article:

“Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not. He says that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that ‘When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist.'” (5)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

Dr. Chamberlain’s point above includes a couple of categories. First, historical study is a bit different from empirical observation. Let’s say, for example, that a number of space exploration missions did come in contact with a teapot, but had no way of recording it or bring back some kind of sample. What we have instead is witness testimony on the part of the astronauts and scientists of the existence of such a teapot. If these were credible people and we had no reason to doubt them, the greater burden of proof would be on people denying their claims. (This point could be debated, but I think most reasonable people would agree.)

The second point is that when we consider something with a long history of evidence, even though non-empirically testable, one can’t simply just dismiss it and hide behind a concept of ‘no burden of proof’ for a negative claim. For example, if someone makes a claim for the existence of George Washington (supported with evidence), I can’t simply say that until someone brings me something I can put in my test-tube which proves his existence, I refuse to believe, and further, have no burden of proof of my denial of his existence. I would have to deal with the evidence provided.

The existence of God (at least the Judeo-Christian God), is the kind of claim that is backed by centuries of historical events and evidences provided by thousands of scholars across many disciplines, as well as credible witness testimony. One might examine it and remain unconvinced, but it simply cannot be dismissed in a manner such as Russell attempts with his teapot analogy. It is not a valid analogy.

I have not even begun to present the positive evidence for theism (generally) or the Christian God. One need only look up the Kalam Cosmological argument, ontological argument, argument from design, or moral arguments for a start. Or, consider (without undue presuppositional bias) historical reasons and witness testimony found in Scripture (and external sources, some even hostile, secular sources). Such evidence can’t so easily be waived off, especially not by analogies such as Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What is sad, is that many atheists and opponents of Christianity actually think it is a good argument. We apologists have our work cut out for us! As William Lane Craig stated, “That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present.” (7)http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster

So, how would an atheist present a positive case for atheism, given that you can’t prove a universal negative? This is where we must consider overall worldviews and preponderance of evidence. This is also called abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. We will talk about this in more detail in another article, but the basic idea is that for many things, proof is too high a bar epistemologically or categorically. Things like the beginning of the universe (historical), dark matter (beyond our current capabilities to directly observe), or that my wife loves me (can’t put that in a test tube) have to be decided on other criteria. Yet, we can’t simply afford to hold-out on our decision making for anything for which we are beyond certainty (with empirical proof). Likewise, the atheist CAN (and must) make such a case for atheism if they are being honest and thinking correctly. They are not ‘off the hook’ by simply saying the burden of proof falls elsewhere.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/teapots-spaghetti-monsters-why-the-atheist-isnt-off-the-proof-hook/feed/0The Titanic: reality, legend, and the use of parallels.http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-titanic-reality-legend-and-the-use-of-parallels/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-titanic-reality-legend-and-the-use-of-parallels/#respondMon, 16 Apr 2012 00:47:35 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=410It is a dark, cold April night in the icy waters of the North Atlantic. The world's largest luxury liner is on a voyage...

]]>It is a dark, cold April night in the icy waters of the North Atlantic. The world’s largest luxury liner is on a voyage between the New York and England. Because it is thought to be ‘unsinkable’ (due to its watertight compartments) it is travailing at a speed in excess of 22 knots and is only carrying lifeboats for less than half its capacity of 3000 (as few as regulations would allow). It is a behemoth vessel, nearly as long as three football fields, end to end, weighing in at over 45,000 tons. Suddenly, terror sets in as the three giant props push it into an iceberg on the starboard side about 400 miles from Newfoundland. This fatal blow causes the ship to sink, killing the majority of the passengers and crew.
April 14th (Saturday) & 15th (Sunday) of 2012, mark the 100th anniversary of the awful collision (11:40 pm) of the Titanic in the North Atlantic and her subsequent sinking (2:20 am). Of the 2229 aboard, only 713 survived. (1)The number of passengers, crew, and survivors vary due to the circumstances, as well as problems with record-keeping. However, I probably tricked you slightly with the title of this article and the above picture of the HMS Titanic.
In the above details I’m actually referring the Titan from a fiction novel written over a decade before the Titanic’s voyage, by Morgan Andrew Robertson, published in 1898. The similarities are uncanny, leading some to question whether Robertson was prescient. In fact, the design of the Titanic wasn’t even discussed until mid-1907. (2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic This fiction book was called “Futility” or “The Wreck of the Titan” and followed the story of a person aboard a British luxury liner. Even the choice of names is eerily close.

But, one might also take another approach. What if I were skeptical about the story of the HMS Titanic? What if I told you that these stories were so similar that it is obvious that the story of the Titanic was copied (and therefore fabricated), based on the story of the Titan? In light of having direct, eye-witness testimony until recently, and some incredible submarine technology which has sent back video and photos of the wreckage on the ocean floor, you would call me crazy. But, what if we jump forward a couple thousand years in time, or push the events back in time a couple thousand years? In other words, we put some historical distance between the events and our investigation. Let’s say we only find some fragments of paper from one of Robertson’s books which can be dated to around 1898 from which we reconstruct the story of the Titan. We have some other fragments of paper, maybe newspaper clippings, which date from 1912 from which we reconstruct some witness testimony of what happened at the Titanic scene? The situation seems a bit different now; this concept of copying takes on a bit more power.

This use of parallels to question historic events is the type of reasoning Christian apologists sometimes face concerning the life of Jesus. You might have come across people making the claim that other gods of the Mystery Cults, such as Horus or Mithras, were born of a virgin, on December 25th, died and were resurrected. Does this argument sound familiar?

The story of the Titan and Titanic isn’t really a good analogy, especially given the small historical time separation, however it does drive home an important point. Just because we have something earlier that appears to be a parallel DOES NOT indicate the latter was copied from the former! It doesn’t shed much light on an account being true or false either. Take another look at the Titanic story. Would anyone seriously claim it was just a legend or a copy-cat reenactment? Yet, it is seriously claimed by some, that the Biblical account of Jesus is just that.

In comparison to the Mystery Cult parallels brought against Christianity, the story of the Titan is a much closer parallel. Even so, taking a look at the flaws in my attempt at making the parallel above should help us think about the types of flaws we will find in the comparison of Jesus to the Mystery Cults.

First, the similarities are cherry-picked while the differences are ignored.

For the Titanic, over 700 are rescued, while only 13 are rescued for the Titan.

The Titan is 800 feet long, while the Titanic is 882 feet long, they differer in number of watertight compartments, lifeboats, weight, power, speed, etc.

While both ships sank, exactly what they hit and how they sank varied. (The Titanic hit an iceberg, causing holes, the ship broke and sank; the Titan ran onto an ice-sheet which tipped it on its side, taking on water, it sank.)

While the trip was in April for both, the Titan doesn’t list a date. It was also traveling in the opposite direction, though sank in roughly the same area.

Second, generalities are often used.

I was purposely vague in how many survivors there were, saying the majority were killed.

I was able to be a bit vague in the physical description of the ship to make them seem the same.

By avoiding the details of exactly what happened, how the ships sank isn’t an issue.

Picking the vague date of the month of April, and not listing the departure and destination keeps the discrepancy from being readily seen.

Third, due to the subject matter, some things will naturally match, but indicate no ‘genetic’ parallel.

Wouldn’t a shipwreck at that time in history in the middle of the ocean generally have a minority of survivors? They didn’t have helicopters or as good of communication.

The ships are actually fairly close in physical characteristics, yet if one were to conceive of a ‘biggest of some class’ one is likely going to be similar if at all being realistic, given the technology of the time period.

If a ship hits some large object in the ocean, it will probably sink. It doesn’t have to be ice, but ice was a fear of the time (they simply thought these ships were going to be impervious to it). The routes where well enough established to be less afraid of rocks, which plagued previous generations of sea travel.

These are two common destinations. Ships would take a similar path. In this time of year (spring), ice would be a big concern as it broke from ice shelves and flows.

Some of the bigger differences:

The Titan was on the third voyage, while the Titanic was on the first.

The Titan had 92 watertight doors, while the Titanic had only 12.

The Titan was full, while the Titanic, fortunately, was not at capacity.

The Titan hit the ice in foggy conditions, while the Titanic on a clear night with no moon.

Traveling in opposite directions.

Huge difference in number and percentage of passengers surviving.

All this considered, in the case of the Titan story and Titanic account, there is enough detailed similarity to make one a bit uneasy about simply writing the parallels completely off. Yet, without some kind of prophecy or prescience, one will have to conclude the similarities are coincidence. We certainly know the Titanic story is true. With the Mystery Cults and Jesus, however, the parallels can, I believe, safely be written off.

Consider the idea that Mithras was a parallel to Jesus. First, we don’t even have any text concerning Mithras to give us details. What we know about Mithras comes from interpretation of wall murals. I guess they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but depending on who is looking at the picture and what presuppositions or intentions they bring, those thousand words might be quite different. Second the supposed similarities are huge stretches and everything else is ignored. For example, it is said that Mithras also had 12 disciples and was born of a virgin. The 12 disciples idea is drawn from the images where the zodiac signs surround Mithras. It is quite a stretch to link this with Jesus disciples. Mithras was born out of a rock. I suppose rocks are generally considered virgins!? Mithras was a saviour who sacrificed himself to save the world? Well, he slayed a dangerous bull, if that counts

Other things about Mithras are crude generalities or things we would simply expect to find when talking about a deity. For example, he is said to have celebrated a ‘Eucharist’ such as Jesus’ Last Supper (and consequent Communion or Eucharist of Christians). There is a bit of truth to this, as Mithras followers did celebrate a fellowship meal, however so did just about every religious group in this time and place. In other words, the assumption that Christianity is unique in the generalities of a fellowship meal is the mistake in thinking here. Or, take the concepts that Mithras was a great teacher or performed miracles. These are simply things we’d expect to find within just about any religion involving a deity. These kind of claims may be unique to Christianity in being true, but they aren’t unique claims of religions in general.

One could look at any of the other Mystery Cult figures and offer a similar analysis. This is only scratching the surface. If you do a bit more research, the absurdity of this kind of parallel claim will become even more obvious. Bruce Metzger, renowned New Testament scholar, gave the following advice when looking at supposed parallels.

“Some of the supposed parallels are the result of the modern scholar’s amalgamation of quite heterogeneous elements drawn from various sources.” “Even when the parallels are actual and not imaginary, their significance for purposes of comparison will depend upon whether they are genealogical and not merely analogical parallels.” “Even when parallels are genealogical, it must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases the influence moved in the opposite direction.” (3)Bruce M. Metzger, “Considerations of methodology in the study of the mystery religions and early Christianity,” Harvard Theological Review 48 no 1 Ja (1955), p 8-10.

On Metzger’s last point, for example, consider that it is said Mithras followers celebrated on Sunday. While this may be true, it is true in Rome, from post-Christian times. In other words, it certainly looks like Mithras followers copied this from the Christians, not the other way around.

For more great information on these Mystery Cult claims and the problems with them, put forth in an easy-to-read, but well-researched manner, see Jim Wallace’s excellent set of articles at PleaseConvinceMe.com. On the left side, look for the pages on Mithras, Horus, and Osiris, as well as pages on the historical evidence for Jesus (4)Jim also mentions this Titan / Titanic link in these articles.

Also, while I have only looked in a cursory manner so far (5)We’ll cover this in depth in future articles., I have noticed similar assumptions and sometimes problems when considering the (quite popular) view in Old Testament studies about parallels between Ancient Near East (ANE) worldview and religious ideas, and the Book of Genesis. While there are certainly valid parallels present (with Genesis often acting as a polemic), they are often overdrawn and imposed to indicated a genetic link in the ‘development’ of Genesis and other texts of the Old Testament. We (and everyone else) need to be much more careful when we make such parallels.

Marilynne Robinson issues just such a warning with a modern day context when she speaks of scholars analyzing our culture from the distant future. She says, “They will ponder our holding great civic elections on Tuesday, and our expressing ritual gratitude for Friday, confident that Norse polytheism flourished among us.” (6)Marilynne Robinson, “No other gods,” Theology Today, 63 no 4 Ja (2007) p 429.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-titanic-reality-legend-and-the-use-of-parallels/feed/0TilledSoil.org – Who are we? What do we do?http://www.tilledsoil.org/tilledsoil-org-who-are-we-what-do-we-do/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/tilledsoil-org-who-are-we-what-do-we-do/#commentsSat, 10 Mar 2012 00:21:58 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=389A more personal, thorough look at what TilledSoil.org is all about and what we are doing; training Christians! Check out our About page too.

]]>This evening, we will be participating in the Apologetics Canada Conference 2012. We are very excited about this event, what we will be learning, and the time we will be sharing with excellent speakers, friends, and apologetics colleagues. Since we will be running a promotion at the event, we wanted to write up an article to introduce new folks to our site. But, since this post will be a bit more personal than our About page, it might be nice for our current readers as well.

TilledSoil.org was started to fill what we believe to be a huge hole in apologetic training among Christians; the nurture of such training within our churches. In fact, we believe this to be a huge hole in education and disciple-making in general. Put this in context of the culture in which Christians find themselves today, and this moves from important to crucial. Just read some of the comments on our About page by some of the top Christian thinkers and apologists!

This hole is represented by the graphic for this article (which matches the promo at the conference). The current state of apologetics is typically made up of conferences, books, DVDs & CDs, web sites, and podcasts. We’re not putting down these modes of education; they are excellent and we can use even more! However, the downside is that they often reach those already sold on apologetics and miss the majority of people in the pew. While this group of professional apologists and their students are doing tremendous work, there simply are not enough of us. We need to find a way to increase our numbers, exponentially. As conference speaker J. Warner Wallace has often said, we don’t need more million-dollar apologists; we need more one-dollar apologists. (1)And before you reach to guard your wallet, don’t worry, it’s just a catchy slogan… I know of no apologist really making millions! Professional apologists are in this because we love Christ, not to get rich. (We can use many more of both, but hopefully you see his point.)

TilledSoil decided to focus on meeting Christians where we think we can find most of them; our churches. We want to create droves of those ‘one-dollar’ apologists, and hopefully some of them will also go on to become ten, one-hundred, one-thousand, and even million-dollar versions. To do this, we have designed a basic-training, of sorts, apologetics program that we can present in a day or a few sessions. The point of this isn’t to turn out fully-ready apologists, but to put the basic concepts in mind and to introduce (and provide) resources for further study. Our experience has been that once people are exposed to Christian apologetics (often for the first time), they hunger for more.

We also realized that most churches simply do not have the resources to provide this kind of training. They could purchase a curriculum, but without a trained apologist leading it, it will be much less effective. (2)Again, more good curriculum is needed, but people learn more from an experienced teacher. That’s why people pay so much money to go to university or seminary vs. just buying some books.

We basically come into churches, alongside pastors and teachers, to provide interactive training in Christian apologetics. This begins at a ‘whet the appetite’ day course, and can transition into more in-depth training with a longer course, or training on a specific apologetic topic.

Our model:

To put trained apologists in place, supporting various geographical areas, through long-term relationships and training.

Some of our core principals for this training and our ministry:

Hands-on – as much as possible, we strive to keep class sizes down so learners have the opportunity to interact with the instructor. We feel this is the best mode for learning, so is important whenever possible.

Inter-denominational – we recognize different groups of Christians hold various positions on various apologetic topics. We do our best to explain and interact with the various positions, even when the instructor personally disagrees. We try to balance this, however, with being true to Scripture, and not simply compromising in order to be overly-ecumenical. This is a tough balancing act, and we probably won’t be able to please everyone. But, we promise we will do our best in this effort. If you read some of the articles on this site, you should get the feel for this (even more so, as we add writers who might disagree with one-another). We try to fairly represent positions, but point-out (or rule-out) views which are problematic or non-Biblical. (3)Note that our instructors are allowed to favor a particular view and point out why they hold that view and feel it to be superior. We might also be tough on aspects of a particular view that don’t seem quite right, even when it is the most commonly held view. The goal should always be to seek truth, but to leave room for discussion where there is disagreement in things which aren’t as certain.

Respectful – Hopefully this goes without saying, but our instructors do their best to be respectful to everyone. They work to balance the material they are presenting with the views present within the group, while maintaining a fair and orderly environment for the other learners.

Accurate – We try really hard to present accurate information and constantly correct aspects of our curriculum and this site that we find to be in error, or which could be better explained. As you read the articles here, you will often encounter updates, corrections, and clarifications. We’re not afraid to admit when we’re wrong, as we seek truth!

Integrity – It is bad enough when we fail as sinful people in our personal lives, as we all do. But, worse, is when we fail in the actions of doing Christian ministry (apologetics or otherwise). Too often, even in Christian circles, behavior can fall to the level of “good-ol’-boys club” politics, defaming others, or lying and deception to benefit the ministry. (4)Ministries, even though Christian, are made up of sinful human beings. People are often shocked to find similar behavior in the Church as in the rest of the world. This shouldn’t shock us, but Christian ministries SHOULD work diligently to be different. We at TilledSoil feel strongly that we not fall prey to this type of behavior. We also feel we should not “aid and abet” this type of behavior when we see it taking place. This won’t always make us popular, but we believe it to be the right thing to do. And, we ask your help in this; point out our failures in this regard as we teach and write. We promise to do our best.

We need your help:

Please keep our ministry, as well as all other ministries of the church, in your prayers.

Please invite us to your church to assist in the advancement of apologetic training.

If you are an apologist who wants to help in the effort and has a broad level of apologetic training, please get in touch with us. We would like to get to know you and see if you are a good fit for what we are doing.

And before you reach to guard your wallet, don’t worry, it’s just a catchy slogan… I know of no apologist really making millions! Professional apologists are in this because we love Christ, not to get rich.

2.

⇡

Again, more good curriculum is needed, but people learn more from an experienced teacher. That’s why people pay so much money to go to university or seminary vs. just buying some books.

3.

⇡

Note that our instructors are allowed to favor a particular view and point out why they hold that view and feel it to be superior.

4.

⇡

Ministries, even though Christian, are made up of sinful human beings. People are often shocked to find similar behavior in the Church as in the rest of the world. This shouldn’t shock us, but Christian ministries SHOULD work diligently to be different.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/tilledsoil-org-who-are-we-what-do-we-do/feed/4Twitter kerfuffle over Canadian ERC Curriculumhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/twitter-kerfuffle-over-canadian-erc-curriculum/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/twitter-kerfuffle-over-canadian-erc-curriculum/#commentsSat, 03 Mar 2012 11:22:00 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=367A kerfuffle erupts over Canadian ERC (Ethics and Religious Culture) curriculum. See how the discussion eventually uncovers the REAL problem!

This past Saturday (Feb 25th), I got into a bit of a Twitter kerfuffle with Dr. James White (of aomin.org) over the Canadian ERC (Quebec) “Ethics and Religious Culture” Curriculum which has been causing a stir around the Internet recently. In this case, it is concerning Alberta, but seems related to the Quebec ERC debate (I could be in error here, as the article was a bit mixed). We exchanged a number of messages in the process, but I’m not sure we gained much clarity. (Note to self: Twitter is just horrible for this kind of thing.) I decided to give up on Twitter and post a blog on the topic. If Dr. White would like to respond, he would be most welcomed (and I’d be honored, though it isn’t expected).

First, I’d like to thank Dr. White for taking the time to respond and interact with me on this in the first place. I’d also like to – right up front – acknowledge that I share his concerns and mostly (I think) agree with him on issues surrounding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I think we also agree on how dangerous the tactics are, which are being used to silence Christians who enter the public square in opposition. The use and abuse of “tolerance” and “diversity” by the political “left” is quite disgusting these days. I’d also like to say that I might be misunderstanding the situation in Alberta, given the intermingling of what an Alberta administrator said in the article Dr. White linked, with the Quebec ERC debate that has been ongoing.

Where I believe we disagree, is over what has been happening in Canada concerning the ERC (Ethics and Religious Culture) curriculum, and the implications for schooling and home-schooling more specifically. I think we’re arguing a bit past one another, as he is focusing on a potential problem over “diversity” training on homosexuality, while I am looking at the program more broadly, including the debate over parental vs state’s responsibility for education (which was more the issue in Quebec).

First, a little background:

The article you will see Dr. White link to in the twitter exchange below is here on Life Site News. It is certainly an alarming article. Donna McColl makes some statements (if they are properly in context, and if terms are defined in certain ways), with which I would also disagree.

The articles I linked to in response to this tweet by Dr. White, were written by my former professor, Dr. John G. Stackhouse Jr. on his blog. They can be found HERE and HERE. I introduced them as another perspective to consider. I noted that I mostly agree with Dr. Stackhouse and that I thought the LSN (Life Site News, sorry, I errantly referred to it as LFN in the Twitter exchange) article was an overreaction. (Also note, I do follow LSN and usually agree with their articles and stances on the pro-life cause.)

A bit of confusion then ensued, as Dr. Stackhouse’s articles didn’t speak directly to the issue of homosexuality, in fact, they focused more on the religious aspects of the curriculum. It was more in the comments following the articles where this was discussed. Even then, homosexuality wasn’t the focus. I tried to point that out, but it just wasn’t working via 140 characters. Dr. White began posing some good questions, but it was becoming clear to me that we were not only failing to get on the same page, but that there was no way I was going to be able to clear it up on Twitter (let alone answer the questions he posed to me).

Here is the site for the Alberta Education Act 2012. If you can find anything in there that prohibits Christian teaching, or forces students to learn that homosexuality is morally positive, please let me know. The only thing I see is that school boards must notify parents when “subject matter that deals primarily and explicitly with religion, human sexuality or sexual orientation” will be discussed, and the parents can excuse their child from those parts.

Section 16 (mentioned in the LSN article) states, “Diversity and respect 16 – All courses or programs of study offered and instructional materials used in a school must reflect the diverse nature and heritage of society in Alberta, promote understanding and respect for others and honour and respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Human Rights Act.”

What does this mean? Well, I suppose it could mean that Christians can’t teach homosexuality is sin if you read it a certain way. Or, it could mean that, say, Dr. Michael Brown’s book, “A Queer Thing Happened to America” would be permitted, but not the Westboro Baptists. A little further investigation is needed.

So, following the rabbit trail, we come to the Alberta Human Rights Act. I’m not going to paste in the section here, but just start reading on page 3, where it says, “Code of Conduct” (for about 1 page). While I suppose someone could try to use it against a Christian teaching against homosexuality, claiming they were discriminating or promoting hatred, it would seem to cut both ways. A Christian could also use it against someone seen to be discriminating or promoting hatred of Christians. I guess Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” won’t be allowed as part of a curriculum either then! Religion is on the SAME list of protected groups as sexual-orientation. While I’m not a big fan of this kind of legislation (because of the problems it often prompts), the spirit of it doesn’t seem to be to smack down religion and promote homosexuality, as it is being portrayed.

The following is a transcript of the Twitter conversation (hopefully I didn’t miss any):

@TilledSoil – @DrOakley1689 not seeing how this stops from teaching it in Christian ethics class. Integration gets tricky, but a bubble doesn’t fix that.

@DrOakley1689 – @TilledSoil Mandating the teaching of respect for moral perversity is morally perverse, is it not?

@TilledSoil – @DrOakley1689 Is it respect for the position or the people? Need to find out. Thx for the chat. I’m giving up via twitter. 1/2

@TilledSoil – @DrOakley1689 I will blog Sun or Mon to try and clarify my position. I’ll include you in the tweet in case you’re still interested. 2/2

OK, now that the readers are caught up, here we go:

First, the problem I have with the LSN article is that it seems rather sensational to me. Terms aren’t well defined, quotes are really cut-up, etc. It seems clear that Donna McColl, herself, might be a bit confused on the matter and was probably trying to run a “politically correct” line in this interview which would keep her out of hot water with certain constituents. Her damning phrase was, “we do not tolerate disrespect for differences,”; (which , note, was cutoff mid-sentence).

Then, we get a statement by a home school legal defense person to toss some gasoline on the fire: “clearly signaling that they are in fact planning to violate the private conversations families have in their own homes.” Woah! Where did this come from? How, exactly, would mandating respect for differences (even if this means what some Christians fear) in the state curriculum, violate the family’s private conversations? I might be a bit slow on the uptake here, but that seems like a bit of an unwarranted Orwellian jump to me.

Second, what does it mean to teach respect for diversity in a state curriculum? Again, even if our worst fears are true, we’d have to define whether we are being told to respect homosexuality, or homosexuals. Of course I respect homosexuals as fellow citizens, and I can certainly respect (and respectfully disagree with) the ideology of the state surrounding how the laws concerning homosexuality and marriage are established. (Note: I’ve yet to find anything dealing with homosexuality in the ERC, but given the language I have run across in it regarding diversity, it seems to be working hard to avoid problems.)

Third, if a Christian home-schooler can’t teach their children to respect, as a fellow human and citizen, a homosexual person, or be able to teach the state’s view and law on same-sex-marriage, while at the same time handle an adequate rebuttal (even if it must occur in a separate lesson plan) from the Christian worldview, this family probably shouldn’t be homeschooling. They are, in effect, doing their children a disservice. One day, these kids WILL have to “leave the nest” and deal with the real world. We, all too well, are familiar with how a similar situation turned out with kids who’s school or parents ripped out the evolution sections of their science texts, rather than deal with them.

Do we need to watch this unfold carefully? Certainly we do! However, the correct response – it seems to me – would not be to pull our kids from such curriculum, but to learn how to meet it head on, while fighting for change in the curriculum (this is, assuming the curriculum is bad in the first place, which I’ve yet to see or be shown.)

Dr. Stackhouse’s articles, on the other hand, argue that the courts in Quebec made the right decision in overruling the parents efforts to remove their children from the ERC curriculum. To the American ear, this probably sounds rather odd. Yet, even in America, I think it is recognized that children receive certain educational components for their own benefit and the benefit of society. If parents are keeping their kids from such education, it might be considered neglect in some form. (1)Certain recent cases have especially triggered a reaction in the USA, such as a child being removed from the home over extreme obesity. The general attitude in America, from what I can tell, is one of not removing a child unless they are in immediate and clear danger. Of course, removal of children from their family is a bit beyond the scope of the present discussion.

It is important, at this point, to understand something about a difference between American and Canadian culture (at least from my observations, being an American, but having lived in Canada for the past 5+ years). I would say that Canada is more social in thinking than America. By this, I don’t mean that Canada is socialist, as in communistic, while America is democratic (lots of countries are democratic; Iran is democratic; democracy isn’t necessarily a positive thing). What I mean is that Canadians seem to have less of the American “libertarian” attitude going on. I’m not sure if that is the best term, so I’ll put it into a common expression: “every man for himself.”

This is important to this discussion, because when it comes to parental rights, I think Americans are more inclined to lean towards, “he/she is my child and I’ll do with him/her as I please.” Or, to put it in a bit more positive light, “He/she is my child and it is my responsibility to bring him/her up correctly.” The Canadian, I think, is less likely to stress that kind of attitude, and to think of preparing the child to interact in society as a whole (which includes benefits, as well as responsibilities). Consider Canadian health-care. While it is often criticized (2)Our family has yet to find the downside of it. Our healthcare here, so far, has been far superior to what we had in various places around the US., especially in America, the thinking here seems to be more that we pay for this, not because health-care is an entitlement or a right (though some certainly believe that, here or in the US), but because having it available to all just seems like the decent, neighborly thing to do.

In the same way, while America has more of a “melting pot” mentality, Canada has more the attitude of maintain the diversity and learn to live with and respect it. This can, of course, have it’s downsides, but it also helps explain why something like the ERC curriculum is seen as such a beneficial thing. I think the USA could benefit from something similar. Ignorance of other’s beliefs, religion, and positions hardly ever helps any situation.

As I noted in response to Dr. Stackhouse’s articles, I am also nervous about the teaching of ethics in this manner. I’m completely fine with the teaching of world religions as a requirement for all children. In fact, I’ll be a cheer-leader for that! But ethics are a much more tricky thing, in that there needs to be common grounding. That said, Dr. Stackhouse challenges us to actually read the curriculum and bring the problems to the conversation. Currently, it does seem like much of the discussion is more hysteria over what might happen. Of course it probably will (when don’t humans muck things like this up). But let’s address them as they come, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As Dr. Stackhouse puts it, “Again, Canadian parents do not have the ‘right’ to keep their kids ignorant. Canadian parents do not have the ‘right’ to make public institutions say only what they prefer them to say–as if ‘public’ means ‘an extension of what I believe with nothing I find objectionable’ instead of what it really means, which is ‘shared with people of other views.'” While this does prick my American ears a bit, upon reflection, I tend to agree. As a Christian apologist and parent, I recognize that I can’t keep my child in some kind of Christian-bubble, and I certainly recognize the damage that has been done by parents and various groups in their attempts to do so in the past.

So, maybe I’m reading the situation in Alberta incorrectly. If the state, in this situation, tries to impose that I must teach my child to respect moral perversity, as Dr. White put it (rather than to respect those who are morally perverse), I will of course join him in opposing it. As Christians, God comes before state. On the other hand, if the state is simply requiring that I teach my child about the law of the land (as defective as it might be in areas), and to give a certain societal respect to my neighbor (as sinful as they may be) why would this present an obstacle to comply?

I think we would need a bit more legal clarification than the statements of Donna McColl in the LSN article here. In which class; any class? I could see that IF this ‘diversity’ training course addresses same-sex-marriage, given its legal-status in Canada, it would probably attempt to teach that it is legal and that GLBT folks be respected. Even if it goes further than that (to teach that it is ethically good or positive), I fail to see why a parent can’t teach this as the state’s position. Then, in their Christianity Ethics 101 course, teach why we as Christians oppose such thinking.

2) “Would Paul have allowed Christian parents to teach their children that worship of Zeus is OK by gov’t mandate?”

Probably not, but he might have allowed Christian parents to teach their children that according to the Greek government, worship of Zeus is mandated and proper (if, in fact, it was so mandated). This doesn’t mean we have to agree with the state’s position.

3) “Mandating the teaching of respect for moral perversity is morally perverse, is it not?”

As I responded in tweets and noted above, first we’d have to figure out what is being taught (ie: IF, in fact, this is even taught in the curriculum). Is it teaching respect for the moral perversity or for the morally perverse (person). If it is as you say, then of course we would have to object to that as Christians. But even so, how exactly is the government of Alberta going to control what is taught to the children OUTSIDE of this particular curriculum? And, as I also noted above, if parents can’t handle a situation in which the state’s teaching conflicts with Christian teaching, how will the kids survive once they leave home?

So, even if the worst case is true, I think our reaction should be to: 1) Use our legal channels (see the Alberta Human Rights Act I linked to above) to argue against aspects of such a curriculum, if it is found to be unfair. 2) Push heavily on educating parents in Christian apologetics, rather than argue for our ability to keep our kids in a bubble. But just as important, we need to be certain that the worst case is indeed the case before we strongly oppose something which might be beneficial. Or, possibly even be overall more beneficial than harmful if we can easily counter the harmful.

What do you all think?

Should the state require a core education to familiarize our children with the world’s major religions? Should the state require a course on ethical thinking and some of our common societal ethics? Should the state be able to override the parents will to keep their children from learning certain things? Certainly we agree that parents should be able to teach things contrary to what the state teaches (or maybe better, in addition to), but do you believe there is a real threat from the state to prevent parents from doing so (as the LSN article seems to present)? If so, do you think they could realistically enforce such a policy?

(Note: This is an “in the news” article, so more related to commentary and discussion than apologetics training. We will be covering topics of ethics and sexuality in regard to “core” apologetics training in articles to come.)

Update: Monday, March 19, 2012

I’m updating the post to pass along a response that Dr. John Stackhouse posted at Cardus which I thought was especially good, as well as make my main points crystal clear.

My main points:

1) My problem is not so much with the fears the LifeSiteNews article expresses, but with the fact that there is no evidence to support the allegations. Of course, if the state were going to come into my home and tell me I couldn’t teach my kids about my religious beliefs, I’d be outraged. That hasn’t, to my knowledge, happened, nor do I see anything to indicate it will.

2) And, this is the critical point for Christian apologetics: We can’t keep our children (or people in general) in a Christian bubble! That might have been somewhat possible a generation or two ago (though still a stupid idea!) but it simply isn’t the case today. Kids, especially, need to know what they will be up against. Hiding it from them just doesn’t work.

John G. Stackhouse Jr. · North Vancouver, British Columbia
Signing off (I’ve got a book to write and on a completely different matter!):

1. If you distrust the public school system, then you distrust it. I have lots of reasons to be wary of it, but I don’t fundamentally think it’s a Bad Thing. Quite the contrary: I think it is a necessary thing in Canada today and ought to be supported by everyone, including Christians. But if you just distrust it, as some of you do, then that’s that.

2. If a public school teacher teaches a curriculum badly, he or she is liable to correction and everyone involved in the system (pupil, parent, colleague, principal, citizen) can legitimately ask for that to happen.

3. If a curriculum itself either fails to tell the truth or transgresses against either law or basic Canadian values, it must be changed. Lots of people can announce the need for that and there are, of course, mechanisms in place to change it.

4. If parents believe their children are at risk of serious harm, including educational or ideological harm, they must protect them. Parents also need to teach their children, however, how to cope with the Real World. Withdrawal is a radical option and must be employed only as a last resort in the face of clear and present danger, not because a parent worries that something, somewhere, sometime might go wrong.

5. The community ought to look out for the welfare of every child and insure that children receive a basic level of care, including educational care. The community therefore ought to intervene when a parent mistreats a child, including when a parent wants to keep a child ignorant of facts and values the community agrees ought to be taught to all of its citizens.

6. Christians are citizens and ought to act like citizens. Our supreme loyalty is to God, but God is the one who requires us to act like citizens. So our situation is not simple, but complex, and only discussions that remain cognizant of this complexity will suffice.

7. There is nothing in the ERC curriculum that a Christian cannot endorse. The only plausible reasons I can see to oppose it, therefore, are (a) you don’t like public education on principle; (b) you believe there is something about this particular subject matter that will ensure it is badly taught; (c) you don’t believe bad teaching of the ERC curriculum can be dealt with effectively by the public school system; or (d) you don’t believe what is bad about the ERC curriculum (point b) or bad teaching of it (point c) can be handled by parents and churches providing alternative education to their children (whether via suppertime conversation, Sunday School, and so on).

I disagree with all of these points, and I do so as a graduate of Canadian public schools (K through university), as a parent whose three sons have graduated from Canadian public schools, and as a former instructor in a Canadian public school (professor at the U of Manitoba).

I am really sorry that so many obviously thoughtful people are reacting this way to the ERC. So what I would like to hear from ANY of these critics (and I’ll have to return to my own blog now, hoping someone will take up the challenge there) is how he or she thinks religions and ethical reasoning OUGHT to be taught to the children of our society.

I have maintained in several places that parents and churches manifestly are NOT providing this education nor CAN they, since neither pastors nor parents are educated themselves to do so. So for all the real or presumed faults of the ERC curriculum and its equivalents elsewhere, what positive alternative do the critics suggest? I look forward to hearing about them.

Thanks for the interaction, friends,

John

The problem is that (d) above is an actual problem (so a valid fear); just not a necessary one. It seems some parents would rather just pull their child and not deal with the situation either in education, or in having the guts to try and change the system. Make no mistake, if our churches had good education, attended by these parents, there would be no problem with their providing of an adequate alternate view in a respectful manner. Also, if even a small percentage of Christians were equipped to make the case in the public square (say, for example, on same-sex-marriage, in a level-headed and well-thought-out manner, the laws could also be changed making this whole conversation a moot point.

John also makes a great point about the need for an education on ethics and religion to the general culture. If the churches can’t do it for their own, who will do it for the rest of the people in Canada?

Update: Monday, August 1, 2012

One point I should make REALLY clear, as I didn’t take it into account in my original article (it comes up in discussion below… thanks Kris!), is that of the Canadian human rights tribunals. These are a sort of kangaroo court in which the normal methods of justice are tossed aside. Basically, the person making the allegation is financially funded by the State; the accused is presumed guilty and bears legal costs. This is NUTS (i.e. INSANE!) but it is beginning to exist in the (previously civilized, apparently) West in many places around issues of discrimination and ‘hate crime.’ The thing to note here, though, is that the problem is the tribunals, not the ERC or changes to wording in various human rights documents. Sure, certain legal wording can make one more susceptible to such courts, but the courts shouldn’t exist in the first place. My call to Canadians would be to get rid of the core problem instead of combatting otherwise good things which might be utilized by this perversion of justice. Even without the ERC or wording changes, you’re still susceptible to the tribunals, should you end up in their crosshairs.

Certain recent cases have especially triggered a reaction in the USA, such as a child being removed from the home over extreme obesity. The general attitude in America, from what I can tell, is one of not removing a child unless they are in immediate and clear danger. Of course, removal of children from their family is a bit beyond the scope of the present discussion.

2.

⇡

Our family has yet to find the downside of it. Our healthcare here, so far, has been far superior to what we had in various places around the US.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/twitter-kerfuffle-over-canadian-erc-curriculum/feed/6Book Review: Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Dr. Hugh Rosshttp://www.tilledsoil.org/book-review-hidden-treasures-in-the-book-of-job-by-dr-hugh-ross/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/book-review-hidden-treasures-in-the-book-of-job-by-dr-hugh-ross/#commentsThu, 16 Feb 2012 04:05:11 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=351A review of this non-typical commentary on the Biblical book of Job by Hugh Ross of Reasons.org. Does it really lives up to the 'Hidden Treasures' title?

Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job is a book written by scientist, pastor, and astronomer Hugh Ross. (1)see Reasons.org While it is, in some sense, a commentary on Job, it is also a considerably different treatment than I have run across before. Most people who analyze Job immediately jump into the suffering Job experienced, God’s sovereignty, or something along those lines. While these would certainly be primary themes of Job (Ross acknowledges this (22) (2)parenthetical number references are book page numbers and spends some time on these topics), the point of this book is to ‘read between the lines’ a bit more to see what else we might discover; and discover, Ross does!

The book aims at a general audience, including Christian and non-Christian. It is written at a level which should be accessible to nearly anyone. As to what the book hopes to accomplish, Ross says, “My hope in writing is that readers will find this book’s focus on the science and creation content of Job a liberating experience in answering their questions and concerns about the Christian faith, in healing divisions within the church, and in challenging nonbelievers with evidence they’ve never yet considered.” (13) I believe Ross accomplishes this goal.

This is not going to be a typical book review, where an argument is followed through each chapter to the conclusion. I did not notice such a progression. This could be because a) there isn’t one, apart from the above overall goal, or b) that I missed it because I listened to it as an audio book (3)I had the Kindle ‘read’ the book into a MP3 file on my computer, then I put this on my iPod. It seems to be a great way to get through a book, as I’m a slow reader, but I’m not certain what effect this may have on my recognition of things like progression of argument.; a first for me. What I will do instead is talk about some of the themes into which Ross groups his discoveries and investigation, and then talk about some of the discoveries I found to be most profound.

The Prologue shares Hugh’s personal story of the ordeals and suffering he and his family underwent while he was writing the book. Aside from being a nice opportunity to get to know the author a bit better, it highlights the opportunity we sometimes have to learn and grow in the midst of suffering. Hugh notes that it impressed him greatly how, “Job did not waste his suffering.” (10)

The chapters of the book seem to be the points Ross is drawing from Job, organized into categories such as: today’s issues, timeless questions, new questions, creation-day controversies, other Genesis controversies, uniqueness of humanity, the ten nepesh animals, soulish animals and lessons we can learn from them, dinosaurs, the problem of suffering, and more.

One of the big points this book makes is that parts of Job can be seen as a backdrop to Genesis and other books of the Bible. (17, 19, 33) Job was likely earlier than Genesis (in a literary sense), even though Genesis begins at an earlier event (creation). If true, this would mean that the original reader of Genesis would have been familiar with Job. (32) If we insert some of the detail we find in Job into the Genesis account of creation, we begin to clear up some of the controversies between the Young Earth, Old Earth, and Theistic Evolution views. For example, Job can help us clear up what appears to be a problem with science and the sun not being created until day four. Speaking about Job 38:4, 9, Ross says, “Darkness initially pervades the surface of the deep (Gen. 1:2) not because the sun and stars hadn’t yet been created, but rather because Earth’s primordial atmosphere was like a thick blanket that prevented light from penetrating to the surface of Earth’s waters.” (82) This is just one of a number of issues, such as death before the fall, interaction with the Young Earth view of dinosaurs, when and what plants came on what days, or the special ways in which humans differ from the animals, that Job speaks to. It is also interesting that if Job is the earliest book of the Bible, it would be the earliest mention (and a clear one at that!) of our need for a Redeemer. (40)

Speaking of animals, their discussion makes up a large portion of this book. In one section, Hugh recounts interactions he had with animals while hiking in very remote parts of British Columbia, and how their behavior differs from animals who have had interaction with fallen humanity. (135-136) Part of the point of this is to illustrate that morality is something unique to humanity. Another fascinating section involves the ten nepesh animals found in Job 38 and 39. Ross considers why these ten animals are specifically mentioned and ponders what we might learn from their importance. For example, goats are very easy to tame, and the first animals to be domesticated. While some other animals beat goats in production of various resources, goats are the best in one animal. In more recent times, goats have been used to create fire-breaks or to stop the spread of invasive plant species, as they are so effective in their cleaning of the vegetation, even in places humans would have a hard time taking machinery. (154-155) Another example is the ostrich. (159-161) Among the many interesting facts about this animal, Ross indicates the importance it would have had to early humanity (the use of it’s eggs and egg-shells), but also the importance it could have for us in the future. Ostrich meat could be produced much more cheaply than beef (half the price of our least expensive meat, turkey), but is quite nutritious and less damaging to the environment to produce than beef. Ross notes that domesticated cows produce more greenhouse gasses than the combined vehicles of the world. (65)

There are many fascinating ties pointed out between Job (and the Bible) and science in this book. While they are intriguing to me, a bit of caution should be advised. Some of the ties seem a bit speculative. By this, I mean that Ross often draws some correlation between a passage and what we are discovering in science, where the two harmonize nicely. But it isn’t always the case that one would draw this out by exegeting the passage. I don’t see this as a problem, other than considering Ross’ enthusiasm, it can sometimes seem more like the latter. An example of this would be looking at Job 38:19-20 and the discussion on the discoveries concerning dark matter. (60-63) The passage certainly does seem to treat light and darkness as things (they reside in places), but I’m not sure how if it were poetic license it would contradict the centuries old idea of darkness as absence of light (as Ross notes). It, then, wouldn’t necessarily be making a claim about reality. Another such example, which is more persuasive to me, is in how often the Bible speaks of God ‘stretching out’ the heavens and what we now know about Big-Bang cosmology. (56) This is consistently illustrated throughout Scripture and could certainly have been stated differently. It is a bit too-conveniently compatible with the science. In general, though, what Ross does is show how science and Biblical revelation are compatible, especially at the points where skeptics often attack.

I appreciate Dr. Ross taking this type of look at Job as it grounds the book in history and reality. Too many tend to take away the big themes, but consider Job a story or fable (even in circles where this isn’t explicitly stated). Because of this, they overlook a lot of what is actually there. This also invites the question of why all this extra detail is given if it is a fable only meant to convey the primary point. It would be a bit like looking at a van Gogh, and saying, “Forget all that other stuff; it is just a painting; the important point is that there are stars in the sky.”

Ross presents a great deal of research on the background of Job and the figures (Job’s friends) involved in the debate. Even considering that I am seminary educated and wrote a paper on Job in one of my Old Testament classes, much of this was new to me (I’m not sure whether this says more about my rigor as a student or the research Ross conducted, but I’m confident nearly everyone will learn something new ). Also, gaining an understanding of the magnitude of the debate and what was at stake, one begins to understand why God accepted Satan’s challenge (something troubling to most who seriously read Job). I also appreciated the level of respect Ross paid to Job’s friends and their counsel. The background Ross provides adds dimensions to them and the book of Job as a whole. It is too easy to write them off as bad friends, incorrect on the counsel they give, and to fail to pay attention to their part of the discussion.

One of the possible shortcomings of the book (aside from endnotes; I hate endnotes; footnotes please!), may be that the book often diverges from Job to make points of the broader Reasons to Believe (RtB) model. This may turn some off who want to stick entirely to Job, or those who don’t agree with the RtB position. For everyone else, I think it enriched the book making it more helpful to both Christians and unbelievers than the subject at hand indicated when they began reading. It helps to see how everything fits together.

Another potential problem is that the book includes so many points that some of them are handled too superficially. While nearly any subject can be expanded on, given enough space, such a brief handling can leave the reader (especially the skeptic) with the idea that the point wasn’t well established. They might think that what Ross presented is all that there is to say. An example of this was the handling of ANE (Ancient Near East) cosmology parallels with Genesis. (76-78) It is often asserted that Genesis was never intended to portray real history, but instead was only a literary device written as a polemic to concepts found within ANE cosmology. This cosmology, it is said, was shared by the Israelites, so they wrote about what they knew. Ross includes a diagram and brief explanation of ANE cosmology, but then spends only about a page dealing with the supposed mention of the brass dome of ANE cosmology in Job. While the explanation is good, it barely touches the major controversy. I was left wanting a brief explanation of how Job, Genesis, and other places in Scripture support non-ANE cosmology, while still interacting with it at points. Essentially, I found myself wanting more depth at some points (knowing there was more), lest the skeptics feel they have won. I recognize the size considerations book publishers impose, but would have chosen to trim some of the other longer areas down in order to expand these points.

Overall, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job was a very enjoyable book. It was written at a level which nearly everyone can grasp. While it left me wanting more at points, it peaked my interest for further study. It also left me feeling like I couldn’t end this review, as I have barely touched on a few of the many-dozens of points this book makes. Agree or disagree with Ross, I would highly recommend giving this book a read. It is a delightful blend of personal experience, analysis of Job, possible ties to science, and explanation of aspects of the Christian narrative and worldview.

Note: A free copy of this book was provided for review by Reasons to Believe. (4)That said, I ended up buying it on Kindle so I could listen to it, as I was finding it hard to get dedicated reading time. It is a book I want in my electronic collection anyway!

I had the Kindle ‘read’ the book into a MP3 file on my computer, then I put this on my iPod. It seems to be a great way to get through a book, as I’m a slow reader, but I’m not certain what effect this may have on my recognition of things like progression of argument.

4.

⇡

That said, I ended up buying it on Kindle so I could listen to it, as I was finding it hard to get dedicated reading time. It is a book I want in my electronic collection anyway!

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/book-review-hidden-treasures-in-the-book-of-job-by-dr-hugh-ross/feed/2Apologetics Canada, and stay tuned.http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-and-stay-tuned/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-and-stay-tuned/#respondSun, 01 Jan 2012 06:47:14 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=342If you are a Canadian (or live in the Pacific Northwest) and are interested in Christian apologetics, you need to check out Apologetics Canada.

We apologize for the lack of recent posting (and frequency), but we have been busy working on a number of background projects and obligations. One of these projects is an important ministry we would like to bring to your attention:

Apologetics Canada is a ministry of Apologetics.com directed by Andy Steiger. We’re pleased not only to be friends with Andy, but also to share so many ministry objectives in common. We’ve been working behind the scenes to build a nice website for Apologetics Canada (which we both hope is going to bring Canadian apologetics together as well as put a bit more punch into the growing movement). We have also been putting in a bit of work on the upcoming conference in March of 2012. We’re really excited about the conference. If you are Canadian (or in the Pacific Northwest) and are interested in Christian apologetics, you need to find a way to attend this conference! Apologetics Canada is bringing in some top-notch speakers on a great variety of apologetic topics. Besides, we’ll be there, if you would like to meet us. (What more reason do you need?)

We will begin posting more frequently in the New Year, as we have a lot of ‘core’ material still to publish on the site and a lot of other topics and ideas we have been gathering. We have a book review (way overdue!) coming shortly on “Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job” by Hugh Ross which we think you will enjoy – we sure did. We will also be reviewing a new video on the intelligent design front, Metamorphosis by Illustra Media. Thank you for your patience.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-and-stay-tuned/feed/0The Problem of Evil: Whose problem is it? Is it a problem?http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-problem-of-evil-whos-problem-is-it-is-it-a-problem/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-problem-of-evil-whos-problem-is-it-is-it-a-problem/#commentsSun, 11 Sep 2011 02:53:49 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=288Evil is pretty hard to ignore, especially when we remember the tragic events of 9/11. But, is it really a 'problem' and if so, whose problem is it?

On this 10th anniversary of the horror witnessed in American and around the world when the ‘twin-towers’ or 1 World Trade Center were attacked (as well as other sites) by Muslim extremists, it seems to be a good time to discuss the problem of evil. The ‘problem of evil’ in Christian apologetics is and has been one of the top apologetic issues throughout history.

Many have pointed to the attacks on 9/11 (September 11, 2001) as a turning point in our generation concerning this issue. The ‘New Atheists’ (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc.) began writing their – soon to be popular – books not long after this event. For the atheist, it was the confirmation that religion was truly dangerous. For the rest of us, it brought us face to face with evil in a way many of us had not experienced in our lives of relatively peaceful existence. One’s worldview needed to be able to deal with this kind of event. I believe that when people were actually faced with the reality of this kind of evil, many found their position wanting and began to either search for answers, or to focus the problem on someone else. As Christians, we should be prepared to provide answers.

First, a note of caution: when dealing with evil and suffering, there is a time to ponder it, and come to good philosophical and intellectual conclusions about it, but there is also a time when one is in the midst of grief and suffering. When dealing with evil in the latter sense, it might be best to consider the Biblical book of Job and just ‘be there’ and ‘walk with’ the suffering person. Having this problem worked out before hand will often help in those situations, but usually isn’t helpful to work through in the moment. The best comfort in these times is to know God is in control and that as Christians we know how the story ends!

Whose problem is it?

This seems like a strange question to ask. Certainly evil is everyone’s problem, right? Well, yes it is, but this question gets at a problem with non-theistic worldviews such as atheism. Under atheism, one cannot really have true evil. There can be things which one does not like or that are not beneficial, but these things ultimately just ARE. For something to be good, or conversely evil, there has to be real objective morality, which in-turn requires an objective moral law giver. For example, 2+2=4 is correct and therefore might be ‘good’ in some sense, or at least better than 2+2=5, but there is no morality involved. Making a particular chess move might be ‘good’ or better if the goal is to win the chess game, than making one which loses the game, but again, there is no morality involved. This is about the extent of ‘good’ available to the atheist. It is simply a pragmatic good, not a moral one. To take this a bit to the absurd in order to make the distinction, if a rape passed on some genes which advanced the species, it would have (1)It has been pointed out to me that an atheist would not have to come to this conclusion, as they have various options for generating ethics systems to choose from. A better way for me to say this is that they would have a hard time standing up against such a notion, as I don’t see how they would ground the opposition. to be considered, on the whole, good in the atheist worldview, no matter if it is distasteful in society. But what about the morality of such an action?

When an atheist brings up the problem of evil, it is first a good idea to evaluate why the challenge is being advanced. If the atheist is (like many of the New Atheists are) complaining about the evil they see in the world, it is fair to challenge this assertion based on the above discussion. In THEIR worldview, evil has no real weight or place. They are borrowing from the theist in order to lodge their complaints. At best, on their worldview, they can complain that they don’t like what is going on in the world around them, but it is kind of a matter of ‘tough cookies!’ or ‘deal with it’. Or, to be more diplomatic, ‘I agree, I don’t like that either’ and then do some pushing on that hole in their worldview. Maybe ask how they can have evil without God. Isn’t this just the way things are? If you do much reading of the New Atheists writing in the area of ethics, you will soon find determinism lurking close to the surface. I don’t see any other choice for them, so I appreciate their honesty. One can only put an illusory veneer of ‘choice and behavior’ on top of this determinism of the atheist worldview.

The ‘New Atheists’ especially seem to like to do a lot of this invalid type of complaining about evil. I believe someone said of Sam Harris, that he is really sure there is no God, and he is really, really mad at Him! Their writings are loaded with objections to what sure looks like real evil to me.

However, the atheist might also be basing the challenge on the Christian worldview. In other words, she might be taking Christianity for a test-drive, so to speak, to see how evil fits. She can’t seem to make it fit and is, then, issuing this challenge to the Christian. It is basically a matter of, ‘evil isn’t a problem in my worldview, but I can’t see how evil can fit into a Christian worldview with a loving God.’ This kind of challenge we do need to address. It is a valid challenge.

Is it a problem?

Evil is certainly a challenge for anyone; it is for the Christian as well, at least to answer sufficiently. However, we can show that it potentially fits within the Christian worldview, and I think fits pretty well (especially compared to other worldviews). In other words, it is a challenge, but I don’t think it is ultimately a problem. Remember, while you as a Christian might currently be answering such a challenge, or struggling with the effects of evil yourself, EVERYONE has to deal with this issue. Don’t let someone challenge you without being willing to answer the same challenge based on their own worldview.

The typical formulation of the problem of evil (in a philosophical sense), looks something like the following:

God is supposed to be 100% good.

God is said to be omnipotent, or all powerful.

An all powerful God would be able to stop evil.

A good God would want to stop evil.

Evil exists.

Therefore God does not!

.

When we are presented with such a challenge, we need to realize that the final conclusion rests on the validity of the premisses leading up to it. For example, if the atheist were dealing with some other religion where God wasn’t 100% good, then the argument falls apart. If God isn’t all powerful, the argument falls apart. This means that the argument won’t work to disprove theism as a whole, just possibly the Christian God IF the premisses accurately describe God AND the other premisses are all accurate.

Certainly, the first two statements are held by orthodox Christians. The third, that God could stop evil at any time, would seem to then follow. The fourth statement is where the problem is to be found. It doesn’t take into account that God might have some valid reason for allowing evil.

In John Stackhouse’s excellent book on the topic, he states it this way, “God, to put it bluntly, calculates the “cost-benefit ratio” and deems the cost of evil to be worth the benefit of loving and enjoying the love of these human beings.” (2)John G. Stackhouse Jr., Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) Kindle location 815 (p74?). We simply aren’t privy to fully understand what those reasons are. It would be quite the arrogant statement for the atheist to then say that this is unacceptable and that they would do better if they were God (which is where they would have to go to retain any weight left in the argument). Perhaps (no, certainly!) it is too complicated for us to comprehend. A scene from the 2003 movie “Bruce Almighty” comes to mind where God turns over control to Bruce (played by Jim Carrey). Bruce quickly learns how tangled the web is and that tweaking one thing over here has massive implications over there. This complexity also fits well with God’s answer to Job. God doesn’t really answer the problem, but begins to ask Job if he is able to comprehend what God has done or has any such ability to do what God has done.

In fact, given that the Bible says God actively restrains evil, a better question might be why there isn’t more evil or why there is so much good in the world. While horrible things happen, I can certainly imagine things being worse! In fact, if the naturalist or atheist position were true, much of the good behavior we see in the world (especially pure altruistic behavior) seems rather odd. It is impossible to explain every situation, but we can see how the given explanations fit within the various worldviews. The basic idea is that God created the world in a way best suited to bring about some greater or otherwise unattainable good.

What are some possible Christian explanations for the why? One of the big explanations is that of free-will (or probably better, free-choice). While this gets into a debate between Calvinist and Arminian positions within Christianity, to the extent that humans are responsible for their actions (and the Bible says that we are), it would seem to follow that evil would be an option as people begin to act and interact. In fact, it is more than an option, the Bible says that we sin because we love sinning! We’re responsible as we don’t sin under compulsion. We will to sin and rebel and our choices follow.

Another explanation, post-Fall of humanity into sin (and note that within all of creation, Satan was fallen and around before Adam and Eve fell), is that evil is a form of punishment. The Bible holds a tension here between God ordaining various types of punishment and justice for the perpetrators of evil, while at the same time, the punishments are typically carried out by agents fully intending to do evil (ex: the Babylonians brining punishment on Israel). Where we have to be VERY careful here is in our trying to read into things (ex: the hurricane happened to punish those people over there).

Pain and suffering are also unpleasant and are supposed to be that way. Partly, this can mean that when we see evil and suffering, they should be a wakeup call that things are not the way they are supposed to be. It is an indicator that something is not right with our life or the world in a similar way that a cut and the associated pain tell us we are being damaged (so we can react) and also teach us to be more careful or act differently in a given situation. C.S. Lewis said that pain is God’s megaphone to wake a deaf world. (3)C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (Kindle Locations 1020-1021). HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition. (p91)

Pain and suffering can also produce mature character. This is a bit like the previous point in that part of our lessons take place in bumping into the boundaries of how we should be acting, and thus experiencing pain. God sometimes uses this to help shape us. Stackhouse refers to this as the physician analogy. “But health matters more than happiness. Indeed, the physician realizes that the patient’s longterm happiness depends on his health, and thus requires the short-term unhappiness of dealing squarely with his current illness. Moreover, for the physician to mislead the patient – even if the patient would prefer to be misled – is malpractice.” (4)John G. Stackhouse Jr., Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) Kindle location 944 (p84?). Again, it is important to note that we’re not in a position to look at some individual instance of evil or suffering and declare with certainty which of these reasons it is. Sometime, we might have more clarity when looking back at our lives, but again, only God is truly privy to this knowledge.

Finally, evil should, when analyzed properly, lead us towards God. This means that it has an evangelistic type of effect on people. The world isn’t as it should be. We need to pay attention to the solution we’re being provided by our creator.

One other type of evil that should be mentioned is what is often called ‘natural evil.’ What we have been talking about so far could be called ‘moral evil.’ The primary difference is agency. Moral evil is a kind of evil that results from the actions (or sometimes inactions) of moral agents. Natural evil would be something like an earthquake or flood. While these things are under God’s control, so in that sense agency is involved, I like to look at them as neutral unless we are given a specific reason to think otherwise (ex: Noah’s flood). When we fell into sin, we threw off God’s protection and care. Thankfully, God has not totally given us our wish! In fact, one can only speculate about how often God saves us from the natural happenings and disasters of our dangerous world. In other words, natural disasters might not be caused by the fall into sin (as some Christians hold), but the problem might be that God isn’t always protecting us from them.

Another important thing to note is how much of a role human evil plays in the effects of natural evil on humanity. Consider the difference in human loss of life between areas that are somewhat properly constructed and prepared for natural disasters as opposed to when similar disasters happen in third-world locations. With our currently level of technology, much of the loss of life around the world due to natural disasters has a lot to do with politics, greed, and carelessness (moral evils).

In the end, we must remember that evil is not part of God’s ultimate plan. It isn’t the way things are going to be one day. Stackhouse summarizes, “However it functions instrumentally in God’s providence, therefore, evil is fundamentally anomalous and temporary. It cannot survive in the ultimate state of God’s cosmos.” (5)Jr. John G. Stackhouse. Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil (Kindle Locations 900-901). Kindle Edition.

(The rest of the article is a bit of an aside over the internal debate between Calvinism and Arminianism within Christianity, but is pertinent to the problem of evil discussion.)

A bit more should probably be said about the debate within Christianity between the Calvinist and Arminian views (while noting that either thwart the atheist’s challenge). Theology matters! This can be seen in trying to work out this problem. The Bible says that God ordains, but doesn’t author evil. While I think this is best left in a bit of mystery, it is interesting to see how theologians have tried to work it out.

The free-will defense, on the face of it, looks pretty compelling, however it is not without some problems. First, it is unclear how humans could have true freedom without implications on God’s sovereignty. I suppose God could corral human actions through external means, but then are humans really free? Second, in the new creation, evil will be abolished. If evil were possible due to freedom in this life, will freedom be taken away in the next? If not, wouldn’t another fall be possible? Ultimately, the Arminian position places more emphasis on the human perspective. God is bringing about a solution that is best for his creatures (the most saved, best lessons learned, etc.)

On the other hand, the Reformed or Calvinist perspective places more, if not all, the weight on God’s sovereignty. God’s purpose in making the world the way it is and for allowing evil is to display His attributes of justice and righteousness, as well as mercy and grace. We get to see God’s justice in dealing with sinful rebellion and in the effects of the rebellion, but we also get to see His mercy in saving sinners from their due reward. The problem here is that God seems to plan for the evil before it is even initiated (though it is carried out by creatures willing to do so). There is something unsettling about God deriving glory from evil and suffering. However, the Bible clearly claims this kind of sovereignty for God. The problem seems to be that the Bible also shows creatures as making choices and calls on them to change their ways. Some kind of tension between the two needs to held.

I can think of two solutions to the problem of there being no evil in heaven mentioned above. First, that there isn’t free-will in the sense an Arminian thinks of, as it would be odd to have this kind of freedom now, and then have it taken away. The exception to this, second, would be that the sanctifying process removes any want or will of anything evil or sinful (yet the will is free). For example, there are things you probably find so horrendous (torturing a baby) that you’d never even entertain the thought willingly, let alone act on it. Maybe God will refine us to such an extent that we look at all sin (including the things we currently give in to or love to do) as that incredibly distasteful. (6)H/T: Dr. John Stackhouse The problem with this is that it doesn’t seem to give a guarantee. Either way, we are well into speculation here about how God is going to accomplish something beyond our current comprehension. (And, I’m certainly no expert on Calvinism or Arminianism either.)

In summary, Christians have a good response to the problem of evil. Evil fits within the Christian worldview without any serious problems, as much as evil is not a comfortable topic. Evil doesn’t really fit within the atheistic worldview in any meaningful way. The formal challenge is easily broken; it is the emotional reaction to which we need to respond by walking alongside the suffering.

Resources:

A couple of books I have read and recommend:

Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil by John G. Stackhouse Jr.

The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis

.

Some other apologetic web sites blogging on this topic on this anniversary of 9/11 (note: I have not read all of these, so am not necessarily endorsing every viewpoint):

It has been pointed out to me that an atheist would not have to come to this conclusion, as they have various options for generating ethics systems to choose from. A better way for me to say this is that they would have a hard time standing up against such a notion, as I don’t see how they would ground the opposition.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-problem-of-evil-whos-problem-is-it-is-it-a-problem/feed/2Environmentalism, creation care, and Christianityhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/environmentalism-creation-care-and-christianity/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/environmentalism-creation-care-and-christianity/#respondThu, 14 Jul 2011 04:14:11 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=271Environmentalism & Christianity sometimes appear in tension, but should this be the case? Look at this often misunderstood and neglected apologetics topic.

The recent observance of World Environment Day (1)World Environment Day was June 5th. and Canadian Environment Week (2)Canadian Environment Week was June 5-11th. reminded me of a very important apologetic topic; that of environmentalism or creation care. But Christianity has a questionable history when it comes to how we should care for our home, at least in common perception today. It is a topic, which sadly, is too often neglected by Christian apologists.

What does environmentalism have to do with Christian apologetics? Well, the discipline of apologetics generally covers three areas. First, there are foundational topics to the discipline, such as epistemology, truth and relativism, etc. Second, would be the more traditional topics such as the existence of God, the Resurrection, and miracles. But, thirdly, in any given age, there are ‘hot’ topics within the culture that impact Christianity. In our time, some of these topics include abortion or the creation / evolution debate. In other times, these topics might have been low priority or not discussed (recognized) at all. Environmentalism is one of these ‘hot’ topics today.

How ‘hot’ this topic is depends on where you live and what circles you keep acquaintance with. If you live in a place such as Vancouver or San Francisco, you might already be quite concerned about the environment, Christian or not. It is part of the culture in these places. In this case, you likely encounter people who blame Christians for much of the environmental damage. You probably should have a good response (ie: apologetics!).

If you live in some other places, (3)like Cleveland or Detroit, a couple of the least ‘green’ cities in N.A., where the culture is certainly not used to being concerned over the environment, if not opposed to taking care of it. it might be a hot topic because environmentalists are seen as wackos to be laughed at while one burns an extra gallon or two of gasoline in one’s monster vehicle. If you are a Christian who cares for creation in this setting, you will be interacting with these people and need something to say. If you are one of those people with little regard for the environment, you may need to learn a bit more about what the Bible says on the topic, as well as understand the fears (legitimate and otherwise) of environmentalists. The legitimate fears are something ‘creation care’ embracing Christians need to be wary of as well.

First, let us consider what the Bible has to say about creation care. The most fundamental command given to humanity is found in Genesis 1:28 and reiterated in Genesis 2:15 in more detail (Genesis 2 is like a zoomed in look at our origins, focusing specifically on humanity; these are NOT two separate creation accounts!). In Genesis 1 we see the command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. (4)or, ‘have a lot of sex’ as one of my professors used to say. We’ll get to that topic later on. Have a lot of sex and take care of the earth doesn’t sound like too bad a job description. We are also told to subdue and rule over the earth. If one were to take this alone with certain definitions of the Hebrew words, one could get the idea of being a harsh master to the earth. However, remember that Genesis 2 focuses in and provides more detail. Here we are told to ‘work’ the land, where the Hebrew word has to do with being a ‘servant to.’ We’re told ‘to keep’ which has meanings which include ‘watch’ and ‘guard,’ but also interestingly, it is the same Hebrew word found in the common benediction from Numbers 6:24, ‘the Lord bless you and keep you.’ Let’s hope God has a bit better understanding of ‘keeping’ us than how many people ‘keep’ the earth! Theology matters here folks.

Another point to keep in mind is that our modern technology enables humanity to have a pretty large impact on the environment. This issue is actually fairly new, as it is only within the last few generations that we have had this ability. Historically, Christians did not write on this topic extensively. In other words, there isn’t much in our traditions as a controlling factor on our behavior. Thus, we need to be really careful to re-examine this issue and not just do what others around us are and have been doing. From an apologetic standpoint, we need to admit that Christians do not have such a great track-record on the environment, especially some sectors of Christianity. However, it is also fair to point out that very few people of any worldview have a very good of a track-record. Again, this is because people, in general, haven’t been concerned about this topic for long.

The blame placed on Christians is, sadly, somewhat founded. The concept of ‘having dominion’ if understood improperly (and many Christians have) can lead to abuse of the earth. A number of years ago I was in a debate on a web discussion board (pre-blogs) where a Christian was proudly proclaiming that he purposely bought a gas-guzzler and was taunting the environmentalists that he was going to burn as much fossil-fuels as possible. Is there anything Christian about such behavior, environmental or otherwise? Christians in the USA also tend to align with political parties which have a questionable track record on the environment, yet fail to critique that party on that aspect of their policy (no political party is perfect, and there may well be other reasons to select it, but a Christian should never just take the ‘whole package’ of any political party without question). The result of this has been a good deal of hostility directed towards Christians by environmentalists. (5)A great book which touches on this is Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Hugh Ross (my review here), where Hugh argues that if Christians pay attention to the Bible and Biblical principals, a win-win situation is possible. Unless we’re simply being greedy (sinful), we can find solutions which will keep the earth AND be economically sound.

One such topic is the current debate over global warming. While this issue is very complex, and I don’t believe either ‘camp’ is completely convincing, many Christians are not helping the situation with their attitude towards the matter. Worse, they often fail to meaningfully engage the issue properly to keep the destructive actions and policies of either side from negatively affecting both the environment and humanity. Here is what we know: 1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are produced in many unnatural ways by humans or under human influence, and in fairly large quantities. 2) This does have some effect on global climate. What we don’t know is: 1) the extent of human effect (scientists make models and predictions, but they are only as perfect as the inputs, and global climate is REALLY complex). The best estimates I have seen put it at ~50% 2) the full ramifications of various corrections we might attempt (apart from reducing our production which would return to less impact). The politics surrounding this issue are HUGE on both sides.

Christians should want to work towards the truth of the matter, but also should want to, without question, reduce pollution. We should also be concerned about the effects of policies which might make a trade-off which puts the environment over human concerns. And no, I’m not talking about putting concerns of pollution over the summer cabin and jet-ski (of course we should do that within reason), but things like letting thousands starve to save a few tons of CO2 produced; or, being so fearful of global warming that we try something stupid like seeding the oceans, etc. We must take actions, but also make sure they are very well thought through. We must ultimately trust in God to take care of us when we have to make trade-offs which favor flourishing of humanity over the environment (and because we make an impact, we will always have to do this). We must also recognize that God commanded us to take care of the environment. This means improve, not just be zero impact (even if that were possible). The other problem Christians need to be aware of is to balance keeping the earth in such a way as not to get distracted by only one issue and miss others. Should global warming be our primary environmental focus? Is concern over global warming even the best reason to curb our fossil-fuel consumption? Is fossil-fuel consumption even the main problem (for example, cows contribute more to greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined). How should we best react? These are all questions Christians would want to address as we react.

Do Christians have anything to fear from the environmental movement, and thus warrant some rejection of it? They often do. First, there are often some fairly strong religious connections for many in the movement, such as Gaia worship or animistic religions. The key here is to be an informed and discerning Christian so as not to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’!

I recently ran across a rather absurd article (being passed around by Christian apologists!) by Brendan O’Neill writing for The Telegraph called “By coating their roofs in naff and useless solar panels, Christian churches are effectively converting to the backward religion of heliolatry.” The basic thrust of the article is that the only reason churches might install solar cells is to bow to the environmental movement, and in doing so, they have become a new religion. While the article is a bit tongue-in-cheek at points, the author actually seems serious about the points he is making. Either that, or the author is just going for click-bait, but sadly, it seems some Christians agree (and strongly enough to pass it along). This shows that the environmentalists fears are founded as well. Note that solar cells do have a 5-10 year period (6)it depends on electricity costs and solar cell technology used where the energy they produce is simply going towards reclaiming the energy used to manufacture them, and then to pay-off the purchase price and installation cost. However, I think most people who install solar cells are making a long-term investment. Once that 5-10 year period is up, it is then wisely using God’s free gift of our sun to capture energy in a more direct way. From where I sit, that is simply using our God-given brains. Also, solar cells are only a small part of what we all could be doing to save energy and reduce pollution.

Some Christians also let their eschatology (view of end times) negatively influence their view on environmentalism. One such view is that the earth and universe are going to be destroyed or burned up and be replaced with a new universe (heavens) and earth. Other Christians disagree and see the new earth as a renewal. Either way, I don’t really see how this has an impact on the Christian reaction towards the environment. Either way, God clearly commanded us to take care of the earth! Either way, unless Christ returns today (something NO Christian could know), we are taking care of the earth for a future generation or minimally for everyone to use and enjoy until Christ returns. No matter how much they might feel they know better than God on this one, is it a good idea to abandon God’s most fundamental commands to humanity for ANY reason?

How can Christians positively respond to the issue of the environment? First, we need to stress that God commanded we care for the earth. In that sense, the Christian should be the ultimate environmentalist (once the term is stripped of false views). We can reassure people that Christians have a long history of being for technology and science when properly used, and have actually originated and contributed heavily to these advancements. However, we do need to point out that Christians hold humanity in a special place which some environmental movements do not. This should never be used to promote human environmental abuse, but human flourishing (shalom). Christianity certainly teaches, when rightly understood, a great responsibility to care for the earth. Doing so is one of the primary commands of God to humanity.

Update: Monday, November 19, 2012

I felt I should update this article (and continue to do so) with some tips which our family has started in an effort to put this theology into action.

Recycle – Most communities now have some kind of recycling program in place. Check into it and get started! I would imagine that many already do this, but a lot of you probably don’t realize that even more recycling programs are probably in place if you hunt around a bit. For example, we found a service that issues a big, oil barrel sized, plastic bag which can be filled with all sorts of plastics which most curb-side recycling programs will not accept. It costs $6 here to bring the bag in, and there is a bit of sorting work (stretchy vs rip-prone vs odd stuff) but it is amazing how much your trash reduces once you are able to recycle nearly all your plastics. Many of these places will take all sorts of items as well, including things like electronics and old appliances. It is a bit more work and does cost a bit (but, your normal trash collection already costs you too), but we feel much better knowing we’re tossing far less materials into landfills.

Reduce packaging – This is really tough to do, since nearly everything is insanely over-packaged. But, if you always keep it in mind and try to buy some of your items in bulk or larger sizes, it does help reduce your packaging. This step should probably come before recycling, actually, as it is better to not use it at all, than to recycle it. We also sometimes make our product choices based on how much packaging and how recyclable the packaging is. If more people did this, product makers would start to take notice and reduce packaging.

Soap Nuts for laundry – If you have not heard of these, they are simply amazing. They are a form of fruit which has natural and environmentally friendly soap agents. They have been used for millennia in some parts of the world. The easiest way to start is to get some and start using them for laundry detergent. I wrote up an article at my personal blog on these amazing little ‘nuts.’ You can also check out this Wikipedia article to get the technical details and some photos. They clean really well and can be used for some other purposes which we have yet to explore. One thing to note is that they do not have the heavy perfumes often found in other commercial detergents, so you’ll see how clean your clothes are, or are not, getting. If you have really dirty or smelly stuff (like soiled toddler clothes or cloth diapers), you might have to vary how many berries in the little bag or how many loads you try to get out of them. But, perfume aside, we find our clothing gets as clean or cleaner than with most commercial detergents we’ve used over the years at a cost savings which is also more environmentally friendly. It can also be easier on sensitive skin.

Pizza boxes – This has been one of my recent pet peeves. Pizza boxes are quite a bit of packaging for the product you get. We used to make homemade pizza all the time, but with busy schedules and a toddler, we’ve ended up letting someone else make them for us more often. The good thing is that they are made out of cardboard, which typically is quite recyclable. However, what many people do not realize, is that papers which have food products, especially oils on them, are NOT recyclable! Not only are they not recyclable, but if they are not removed prior to processing, they can mess up an entire batch of recycled paper. We have found that many companies proudly display the recycle logo and tell people to recycle the boxes, but do not take proper precautions to ensure most of the boxes will actually be recyclable. What they need to do is include a wax-paper like liner which will keep the grease from soaking into the bottom of the box. Yes, it is a bit more packaging, but it keeps the whole rest of the package recyclable. I’ve started to write or e-mail pizza companies who don’t do this, in hopes that some of them will change.

Vehicles – We can certainly put a bit more focus on better fuel economy when we purchase our vehicles. When we bought our car, I hoped to find one which had decent fuel economy, was fun to drive (as I’ve been a sport-car nut over the years, and used to race SCCA autocross), and was a good family vehicle. It seems like an impossible mix, but I think we found that in a VW Jetta TDI (diesel). Unfortunately, they charge quite a premium (which doesn’t seem justified to me), but we’re quite happy with the result (and, also unfortunately, they cut a lot of corners on the 2011+ models, so it is less attractive for new, now). It’s a car that is as quick as some of my previous sports cars (like an Isuzu Impluse Turbo or Mazda Miata), is quite fun to drive, yet gets incredible fuel economy, especially given the previous criteria. If performance isn’t as much of a concern, you can do even better. Hybrids are better for some situations, so they may be worth seriously considering (again, even with the price premium). Even IF you think Global Warming is bunk, there are a number of other reasons to try and conserve fuel, such as lowering pollution and decreasing our dependance on oil from countries we really shouldn’t ethically even be doing business with. You can check out our mostly-city-driven fuel economy which we track at Fuelly:

like Cleveland or Detroit, a couple of the least ‘green’ cities in N.A., where the culture is certainly not used to being concerned over the environment, if not opposed to taking care of it.

4.

⇡

or, ‘have a lot of sex’ as one of my professors used to say. We’ll get to that topic later on. Have a lot of sex and take care of the earth doesn’t sound like too bad a job description.

5.

⇡

A great book which touches on this is Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job by Hugh Ross (my review here), where Hugh argues that if Christians pay attention to the Bible and Biblical principals, a win-win situation is possible. Unless we’re simply being greedy (sinful), we can find solutions which will keep the earth AND be economically sound.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/environmentalism-creation-care-and-christianity/feed/0Osama, Islam, and role of Christian apologeticshttp://www.tilledsoil.org/osama-islam-and-role-of-christian-apologetics/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/osama-islam-and-role-of-christian-apologetics/#commentsWed, 15 Jun 2011 07:11:58 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=263I’m quite late in responding to the issue of a Christian response to the death of Osama bin Laden. Much has been said on the topic and I had not intended to add to the commentary. However, while listening to the recording of the recent “Unbelievable? the Conference” (1)“Unbelievable? 11 Jun 2011 – Unbelievable? the Conference – 10 June 2011” in London, I decided that this conversation was worth passing along. The entire recording (which is only a small part of the whole conference) is well worth listening to, however I wanted to highlight, in particular, the responses of the panel to the question of how Christians should react to the death of Osama. The question starts at 48:17 in, though the answer I’m talking about starts about 53 min in (between 1/2 & 3/5th of the way in) and runs until 54:27. (2)Unfortunately, the built-in player doesn’t seem to show the time. You’d have to download the file or get it through podcast to get that. However, you can probable scan through and find the spot. Jay Smith said: “Is anything going to change, now that Osama is dead? There’s nothing going to change . . . We [Christians] are the only ones who can take on this battle. We are the only ones that can oppose it. We are the only ones that can understand it. Where are we and what are we doing about it? No one is doing it, and that’s why shame on us that we are not in the midst of this battle. You cannot expect the Americans or the British to take on this battle. We should not assume that this group of soldiers that went in those helicopters have done much for the furtherance of irradiating radical Islam. Only we can do that. Only we can confront really what drives these people to do what they are doing. And it has been around for 1400 years, this is nothing new.” I agree strongly with Jay on this. Radical Islam will not be defeated by armies and military strength. Christians ultimately will need to be educated on both Christianity and Islam, far better than they currently are if we have any hope of stoping the non-militaristic advance of Islam, let alone the radicals like Osama. However, if we really wanted to have an impact, I believe that if Christians were well enough equipped, we could not only stop the advance of Islam, but see many of these people come to Christ. Islam is advancing largely because Christianity has become so weak. The military and terrorist aspects just happen to be making the news headlines. Much more is happening ‘behind the scenes.’ I give a brief overview of world religions in my basic apologetics classes. I spend more time talking about Islam, as it really is the biggest one we face today. However, I will probably ramp up my own knowledge of Islam (beyond a couple graduate level classes I’ve already taken on the subject) and begin to focus more effort in educating Christians on this crucial topic. I know other apologists doing the same, but we really need the average church-goer to step-up to meet this challenge. It is around the dinner table within the friendships that average Christian families form with their Muslim neighbors where this ‘battle’ will ultimately be won; in their hearts. Notes [ + ] 1. ⇡ “Unbelievable? 11 Jun 2011 – Unbelievable? the Conference – 10 June 2011” 2. ⇡ Unfortunately, the built-in player doesn’t seem to show the time. You’d have to download the file or get it through podcast to get that. However, you can probable scan through and find the spot.

I’m quite late in responding to the issue of a Christian response to the death of Osama bin Laden. Much has been said on the topic and I had not intended to add to the commentary. However, while listening to the recording of the recent “Unbelievable? the Conference” (1)“Unbelievable? 11 Jun 2011 – Unbelievable? the Conference – 10 June 2011” in London, I decided that this conversation was worth passing along. The entire recording (which is only a small part of the whole conference) is well worth listening to, however I wanted to highlight, in particular, the responses of the panel to the question of how Christians should react to the death of Osama.

The question starts at 48:17 in, though the answer I’m talking about starts about 53 min in (between 1/2 & 3/5th of the way in) and runs until 54:27. (2)Unfortunately, the built-in player doesn’t seem to show the time. You’d have to download the file or get it through podcast to get that. However, you can probable scan through and find the spot.

Jay Smith said:

“Is anything going to change, now that Osama is dead? There’s nothing going to change . . . We [Christians] are the only ones who can take on this battle. We are the only ones that can oppose it. We are the only ones that can understand it. Where are we and what are we doing about it? No one is doing it, and that’s why shame on us that we are not in the midst of this battle. You cannot expect the Americans or the British to take on this battle. We should not assume that this group of soldiers that went in those helicopters have done much for the furtherance of irradiating radical Islam. Only we can do that. Only we can confront really what drives these people to do what they are doing. And it has been around for 1400 years, this is nothing new.”

I agree strongly with Jay on this. Radical Islam will not be defeated by armies and military strength. Christians ultimately will need to be educated on both Christianity and Islam, far better than they currently are if we have any hope of stoping the non-militaristic advance of Islam, let alone the radicals like Osama. However, if we really wanted to have an impact, I believe that if Christians were well enough equipped, we could not only stop the advance of Islam, but see many of these people come to Christ. Islam is advancing largely because Christianity has become so weak. The military and terrorist aspects just happen to be making the news headlines. Much more is happening ‘behind the scenes.’

I give a brief overview of world religions in my basic apologetics classes. I spend more time talking about Islam, as it really is the biggest one we face today. However, I will probably ramp up my own knowledge of Islam (beyond a couple graduate level classes I’ve already taken on the subject) and begin to focus more effort in educating Christians on this crucial topic. I know other apologists doing the same, but we really need the average church-goer to step-up to meet this challenge. It is around the dinner table within the friendships that average Christian families form with their Muslim neighbors where this ‘battle’ will ultimately be won; in their hearts.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/osama-islam-and-role-of-christian-apologetics/feed/2The Occult and New Age challengehttp://www.tilledsoil.org/the-occult-and-new-age-challenge/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-occult-and-new-age-challenge/#respondWed, 15 Jun 2011 07:02:49 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=260A couple of other religions which often go un-noticed are the occult and New Age. I might better say un-addressed, as both of these are all around us to various extents (hardly un-noticed). I ran across an excellent resource which I wanted to pass along. Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 interviewed former astrologer Marcia Montenegro who, after becoming a Christian, founded Christian Answers for the New Age (CANA). I learned a lot through this excellent interview which can be found here: Interview: Marcia Montenegro (former astrologer) – Monday, June 13, 2011 This is a topic which very few apologists (including myself) or Christians in general are equipped to speak to. Often, as Marcia says, it gets ignored or Christians are fearful of addressing it. It is another area we need to work to become familiar with. Many of the associated views are becoming quite common and popular in our culture. While we often speak of culture becoming ‘secular,’ very few individuals really hold to a purely secular position. Often, other religions or parts of various religions seep in to fill the spiritual vacuum. New Age and occult ideas are as close as the newspaper or Oprah show, and very easily (and often innocently) picked up and added to our ‘spiritual’ mix.

A couple of other religions which often go un-noticed are the occult and New Age. I might better say un-addressed, as both of these are all around us to various extents (hardly un-noticed). I ran across an excellent resource which I wanted to pass along. Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 interviewed former astrologer Marcia Montenegro who, after becoming a Christian, founded Christian Answers for the New Age (CANA).

This is a topic which very few apologists (including myself) or Christians in general are equipped to speak to. Often, as Marcia says, it gets ignored or Christians are fearful of addressing it. It is another area we need to work to become familiar with. Many of the associated views are becoming quite common and popular in our culture. While we often speak of culture becoming ‘secular,’ very few individuals really hold to a purely secular position. Often, other religions or parts of various religions seep in to fill the spiritual vacuum. New Age and occult ideas are as close as the newspaper or Oprah show, and very easily (and often innocently) picked up and added to our ‘spiritual’ mix.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-occult-and-new-age-challenge/feed/0Apologetic mop-up starts Sundayhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetic-mop-up-starts-sunday/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetic-mop-up-starts-sunday/#respondSat, 21 May 2011 01:07:37 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=243In just under 24 hours, we’ll know if this billboard is correct (I might check in early with some of my Australian friends). As I think it was TurretinFan who Twitter’d the other day, nothing says ‘thief in the night’ like world-wide bulletin boards and advertising, huh? Having listened to Dr. White’s “Dividing Line” podcast for years, I was familiar with Harold Camping (FamilyRadio.com) and the May 21st 2011 ‘world end’ for quite some time. I figured it was mostly a debate between a fringe group led by a false prophet (note that he was wrong in 1994 . . . what does the Bible say about this?) and more main-stream Christianity. I did not give it much further consideration . . . until recently that is. This story has been popping up everywhere in the media! What I thought was something very few even knew about, is now known by just about everyone. Even tech sites (which I follow, being a tech geek as well) have been ablaze today. Since it seems atheism is quite common among tech types, this has become quite the joke in these places. Take for example this Gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/5803766/rapture-prank “A lot of people think the Rapture is coming May 21. . . . And if you make your local news? You’ll be Giz’s hero for the day.” Really, a lot of people? Like, maybe, Christians? Or would that be a tiny fringe group of ‘Christians’ following a deluded man? The article isn’t very clear on this. Even if the author understands this, it is clear many of the respondents do not. (Note: I’d have been able to interject a bit of sense into the fray had Gizmodo implemented a sensible system of response, not requiring handing over my Facebook or Twitter account to them . . . but enough on the tech rant for now. I’d have been the 4th post too.) But, why hero? Is it really difficult to prank a silly cult? It seems maybe these folks don’t understand what they are even poking fun of. I’m not sure who I feel more sorry for, Camping’s followers or all the tech-geek-atheists who think they understand the religion they are denying and poking fun of. And this is where us apologists come in. We’ll have a lot of work to do, come Sunday, both in trying to educate any Harold Camping followers we might come across (have you ever met one?) but more importantly, the millions of people who might be talking (and joking) about this event. It does introduce yet another unique opportunity to open the discussion. Update: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:00:44 AM Well, since the ‘end of the world’ is approaching half-way finished (1)OK, so like 5 hours away, but we’re already to New Delhi. One would think Japan, China, Russia, or half of India would have reported something by now., I figured I should give a status update. As Dr. White reports, the prediction of Harold Camping has already been proven false. You can also keep tabs on things at: http://www.rapturefail.org/ as well as your preferred news outlet. Or, if you like, pop on over to: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/ and keep watch for one of those big earthquakes (bigger than the Japan 9+, btw) which is supposed to be preceding all of this. When you find people discussing this, be sure to let them know the following: Mainstream Christians have known this to be false for a long time now. Harold Camping made predictions in the past which did not come true, which should automatically send up a red-flag about his being any kind of prophet. Many have pointed all of this out in public and through the media. Since Harold Camping is a false prophet, his only other way would have to be a) sheer speculation or b) some kind of crazy calculation. If A, then he should certainly be ignored. If B, he should be shown the passages in the Bible that say not even Jesus knows… so it certainly isn’t encoded in the Bible for Harold to discover. This is not proof of any kind of failure of Christianity. Since this doesn’t align with Christian teaching, it is at best an example of what happens when you DO NOT follow Christian teaching. Point out that most of the non-believers who seem to be commenting on this in the media know less about it than the poor, deluded followers of Harold Camping. I was challenged on one blog, that the fact that this kind of event requires Christian apologists, speaks volumes about the message of Christianity. However, then why does science, for example, need so many apologists to straighten out the public misconceptions? How about so many other topics? It is because humanity is fallen that we are often too lazy to get our facts straight, or outright twist the facts. Christianity is not alone in the need for apologetics. Stay tuned for a post-end-of-the-world news wrap-up. 😉 Update: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:17:58 PM It now the 22nd of May everywhere on earth, so I guess that makes it official without a doubt, Harold Camping failed with HIS message about the end of the world, judgement day, the rapture, etc. Because of this, many non-Christians had a lot of fun poking fun of Christianity yet again (with Rapture Parties and such). Thanks Harold! We Christians have also had some fun making jokes about how silly this whole event was . . . and hopefully at least some of the non-Christians also picked up on that (so as not to implicate all Christians. I’ve seen at least a few articles in the general media point this small detail out). God, it seems, also had a bit of fun with the occasion if I’m seeing this correctly. We lived in San Francisco for a number of years, and I’ve grown accustom to checking the USGS earthquake map (which I pointed out above). I can’t recall ever seeing a more calm day in […]

In just under 24 hours, we’ll know if this billboard is correct (I might check in early with some of my Australian friends). As I think it was TurretinFan who Twitter’d the other day, nothing says ‘thief in the night’ like world-wide bulletin boards and advertising, huh?

Having listened to Dr. White’s “Dividing Line” podcast for years, I was familiar with Harold Camping (FamilyRadio.com) and the May 21st 2011 ‘world end’ for quite some time. I figured it was mostly a debate between a fringe group led by a false prophet (note that he was wrong in 1994 . . . what does the Bible say about this?) and more main-stream Christianity. I did not give it much further consideration . . . until recently that is.

This story has been popping up everywhere in the media! What I thought was something very few even knew about, is now known by just about everyone. Even tech sites (which I follow, being a tech geek as well) have been ablaze today. Since it seems atheism is quite common among tech types, this has become quite the joke in these places. Take for example this Gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/5803766/rapture-prank

“A lot of people think the Rapture is coming May 21. . . . And if you make your local news? You’ll be Giz’s hero for the day.”

Really, a lot of people? Like, maybe, Christians? Or would that be a tiny fringe group of ‘Christians’ following a deluded man? The article isn’t very clear on this. Even if the author understands this, it is clear many of the respondents do not. (Note: I’d have been able to interject a bit of sense into the fray had Gizmodo implemented a sensible system of response, not requiring handing over my Facebook or Twitter account to them . . . but enough on the tech rant for now. I’d have been the 4th post too.)

But, why hero? Is it really difficult to prank a silly cult? It seems maybe these folks don’t understand what they are even poking fun of. I’m not sure who I feel more sorry for, Camping’s followers or all the tech-geek-atheists who think they understand the religion they are denying and poking fun of.

And this is where us apologists come in. We’ll have a lot of work to do, come Sunday, both in trying to educate any Harold Camping followers we might come across (have you ever met one?) but more importantly, the millions of people who might be talking (and joking) about this event. It does introduce yet another unique opportunity to open the discussion.

Update: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:00:44 AM

Well, since the ‘end of the world’ is approaching half-way finished (1)OK, so like 5 hours away, but we’re already to New Delhi. One would think Japan, China, Russia, or half of India would have reported something by now., I figured I should give a status update. As Dr. White reports, the prediction of Harold Camping has already been proven false. You can also keep tabs on things at: http://www.rapturefail.org/ as well as your preferred news outlet. Or, if you like, pop on over to: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/ and keep watch for one of those big earthquakes (bigger than the Japan 9+, btw) which is supposed to be preceding all of this.

When you find people discussing this, be sure to let them know the following:

Mainstream Christians have known this to be false for a long time now. Harold Camping made predictions in the past which did not come true, which should automatically send up a red-flag about his being any kind of prophet. Many have pointed all of this out in public and through the media.

Since Harold Camping is a false prophet, his only other way would have to be a) sheer speculation or b) some kind of crazy calculation. If A, then he should certainly be ignored. If B, he should be shown the passages in the Bible that say not even Jesus knows… so it certainly isn’t encoded in the Bible for Harold to discover.

This is not proof of any kind of failure of Christianity. Since this doesn’t align with Christian teaching, it is at best an example of what happens when you DO NOT follow Christian teaching.

Point out that most of the non-believers who seem to be commenting on this in the media know less about it than the poor, deluded followers of Harold Camping.

I was challenged on one blog, that the fact that this kind of event requires Christian apologists, speaks volumes about the message of Christianity. However, then why does science, for example, need so many apologists to straighten out the public misconceptions? How about so many other topics? It is because humanity is fallen that we are often too lazy to get our facts straight, or outright twist the facts. Christianity is not alone in the need for apologetics.

Stay tuned for a post-end-of-the-world news wrap-up.

Update: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:17:58 PM

It now the 22nd of May everywhere on earth, so I guess that makes it official without a doubt, Harold Camping failed with HIS message about the end of the world, judgement day, the rapture, etc. Because of this, many non-Christians had a lot of fun poking fun of Christianity yet again (with Rapture Parties and such). Thanks Harold! We Christians have also had some fun making jokes about how silly this whole event was . . . and hopefully at least some of the non-Christians also picked up on that (so as not to implicate all Christians. I’ve seen at least a few articles in the general media point this small detail out).

God, it seems, also had a bit of fun with the occasion if I’m seeing this correctly. We lived in San Francisco for a number of years, and I’ve grown accustom to checking the USGS earthquake map (which I pointed out above). I can’t recall ever seeing a more calm day in the sense of world-wide earthquakes. Supernatural smack-down? I’ll let you decide.

In any event, I guess now us apologists will need to get back to the day-to-day correcting and informing people on what Christianity really teaches. Hopefully in the next few weeks, until this story wears off, it will be a useful tool to engage people in conversation and let them know Christianity has a tad bit more substance than wacky folks predicting the supposed rapture.

One more thing. Is it just me, or do the popular ‘rapture’ texts like Matthew 24 indicate it will be the non-believers who will be taken away? That would put a kink in the whole ‘Left Behind’ image so common among both believers and unbelievers alike. Though, just so this doesn’t get too serious, I leave you with the following:

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetic-mop-up-starts-sunday/feed/0The vacation dilemma: solved!http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-vacation-dilemma-solved/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-vacation-dilemma-solved/#respondWed, 04 May 2011 10:04:13 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=239So, you would like to take an opportunity to advance your understanding of Christianity, and you have seen a number of interesting courses and conferences, but you only have a limited amount of vacation time. On the other hand, you and your family would like to go someplace beautiful – full of excitement and adventure – or maybe to relax. Why choose? . . . Do both! Regent Summer School has a program designed to solve just this dilemma. Most of the courses fit into a 1 or 2-week period with ample time to play. And there are few places better to play than Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Everything from the best of city culture to the best nature has to offer is within easy reach of Regent College. Of course, the professors know this too, so Regent tends to draw some of the best from all over the world to teach during the summer program. Learners also come from all walks of life, and from all over the world, to create an unique environment that is hard to find anywhere else. http://summer.regent-college.edu/ Regent College is my alma mater, so I can vouch for excellent, engaging courses and the unique environment. My wife and I discovered Regent while vacationing in the Vancouver area, so we fell in love with the blend of city and outdoors Vancouver has to offer even before we added the bonus of Regent College for my education. We love both! My first course at Regent was a Summer School course a number of years ago in Christian Apologetics. While I enjoyed most of my classes at Regent while earning my degree, the summer school was extra special due to the mixture of people attending. There were pastors, prospective students, current students, people just wanting to dig a bit deeper into their Christian faith, and most of them were also out to enjoy the company of one-another as well as see Vancouver (as most weren’t from the area). The course was designed to engage this diverse group of people. A description from Regent: “Classes [by] some of the foremost evangelical scholars of our day – like Alister McGrath, Bruce Waltke, Marva Dawn and Chris Wright – in the areas of theology, art, missions, spirituality, history, Bible studies, church leadership, marketplace theology and much more. If you’re pursuing a graduate degree, some of these courses may well transfer over – and not just in theology or Biblical studies. If you’re considering a career or vocational change, some of these courses will help you sort through those issues. If you’re simply seeking personal enrichment this summer in one of the world’s most liveable cities, come check us out.” http://www.regent-college.edu/academics/summer/audio_video.php To allow you to enjoy your vacation and maximize your playing time, you don’t have to complete the course requirements for 45 days, even if you are taking the course for credit. You can also audit many of the courses which is even more fun (as then you don’t have to turn in those assignments 45 days later). Here are some classes I’m interested in and you might be too as an apologist: Mapping Gender, c.1780-1900 – Sarah Williams Truth, Beauty, and Imagination: Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern Context – Alister McGrath Christianity and the Political Economy of Capitalism – Paul Williams & Paul Oslington Science and Christianity: Retrospect and Prospect – Mark Noll & David Livingstone The Fiction of C.S. Lewis – David Downing There are also great free public lectures: http://www.regent-college.edu/events/public_lectures.php As for Vancouver, as I mentioned earlier, there is everything from excellent food and culture in the city, to world-class outdoor enjoyment right here. Should that not be enough, it is a short trip to places like Whistler, Vancouver Island, or even into the wine country of the Okanagan. Here are a few pics to get your dreaming started, but really just put some of these names (Vancouver, Stanley Park, Sea to Sky Highway, Whistler, Vancouver Island, Okanagan, Vancouver Cuisine) in Google images and take a look! Photo:Vancouver Twilight by photodreamz_ Photo:Vancouver, BC by mayanais Photo:Vancouver, BC by mayanais Photo:Vancouver, BC by mayanais http://www.flickr.com/photos/squeakymarmot/144827629/ Photo:Vancouver, BC June 2010 by anitakhart Photo:BC Mountains by mswern Photo:Lions Bay from Hat Mountain by kteague Photo:Shannon Falls by rpongsaj Photo:English Bay, Vancouver, BC by JamesZ_Flickr

So, you would like to take an opportunity to advance your understanding of Christianity, and you have seen a number of interesting courses and conferences, but you only have a limited amount of vacation time. On the other hand, you and your family would like to go someplace beautiful – full of excitement and adventure – or maybe to relax. Why choose? . . . Do both!

Regent Summer School has a program designed to solve just this dilemma. Most of the courses fit into a 1 or 2-week period with ample time to play. And there are few places better to play than Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Everything from the best of city culture to the best nature has to offer is within easy reach of Regent College.

Of course, the professors know this too, so Regent tends to draw some of the best from all over the world to teach during the summer program. Learners also come from all walks of life, and from all over the world, to create an unique environment that is hard to find anywhere else.

Regent College is my alma mater, so I can vouch for excellent, engaging courses and the unique environment. My wife and I discovered Regent while vacationing in the Vancouver area, so we fell in love with the blend of city and outdoors Vancouver has to offer even before we added the bonus of Regent College for my education. We love both! My first course at Regent was a Summer School course a number of years ago in Christian Apologetics. While I enjoyed most of my classes at Regent while earning my degree, the summer school was extra special due to the mixture of people attending. There were pastors, prospective students, current students, people just wanting to dig a bit deeper into their Christian faith, and most of them were also out to enjoy the company of one-another as well as see Vancouver (as most weren’t from the area). The course was designed to engage this diverse group of people.

A description from Regent:

“Classes [by] some of the foremost evangelical scholars of our day – like Alister McGrath, Bruce Waltke, Marva Dawn and Chris Wright – in the areas of theology, art, missions, spirituality, history, Bible studies, church leadership, marketplace theology and much more. If you’re pursuing a graduate degree, some of these courses may well transfer over – and not just in theology or Biblical studies. If you’re considering a career or vocational change, some of these courses will help you sort through those issues. If you’re simply seeking personal enrichment this summer in one of the world’s most liveable cities, come check us out.”

To allow you to enjoy your vacation and maximize your playing time, you don’t have to complete the course requirements for 45 days, even if you are taking the course for credit. You can also audit many of the courses which is even more fun (as then you don’t have to turn in those assignments 45 days later).

Here are some classes I’m interested in and you might be too as an apologist:

As for Vancouver, as I mentioned earlier, there is everything from excellent food and culture in the city, to world-class outdoor enjoyment right here. Should that not be enough, it is a short trip to places like Whistler, Vancouver Island, or even into the wine country of the Okanagan.

Here are a few pics to get your dreaming started, but really just put some of these names (Vancouver, Stanley Park, Sea to Sky Highway, Whistler, Vancouver Island, Okanagan, Vancouver Cuisine) in Google images and take a look!

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/the-vacation-dilemma-solved/feed/0Proselytism: So simple, even some atheists get it!http://www.tilledsoil.org/proselytism-so-simple-even-some-atheists-get-it/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/proselytism-so-simple-even-some-atheists-get-it/#respondTue, 05 Apr 2011 22:27:06 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=230Should Christians try to convince others about the truth of their faith (proselytism)? Penn Jillette says you would have to hate someone not to proselytize.

Disclaimer (1)OK, before I get too many emails. . . yes, my title was a cheap play off of the Geico ‘caveman’ commercials. And NO, I am NOT trying to imply atheists are cavemen or unintelligent, etc. However, in my experience, a majority of atheists and skeptics I have encountered DO complain about the proselytizing nature of religion, especially Christianity.

These days, it seems proselytism (2)“Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion.” from this Wikipedia article is such a touchy subject. I often hear skeptics and atheists complaining about religious people trying to convince others of their beliefs. But, is it really proselytism that is the problem, or is it the sharing of your religion (often called evangelism in Christianity) that is their concern? If we give it a moments thought – which most apparently do not – it is easy to see that it is the latter. This must see video by atheist Penn (Penn Jillette) of “Penn & Teller” shows very clearly that it isn’t proselytism, in general, that should be of concern. It should actually be expected!

.

.

Environmentalists, or even those who have a smidgen of concern for the environment, have no problem proselytizing about how and why we should protect the environment. Doctors have no problem proselytizing about ways we should eat and exercise to keep our bodies healthy. Tech-geeks have no problem proselytizing about which computer they believe is the better one.

I include that last example because it is probably a bit closer to what many today think about debating which religion is superior or correct (though computers are probably at least considered a more important topic to discuss). It is complex topic, therefore many don’t understand computers well enough to determine which might be better. Many think the debate is silly and that: a computer is a computer.

Worse still, a lot of people would consider it a closer analogy to religion if I had said it is like proselytizing about the clear superiority of chocolate ice cream over strawberry. They would say, that’s silly! That one is just a matter of taste! The general ignorance of religion today is so high that it is common to view religion as a matter of taste, often expressed as, “whatever works for you.”

Penn, refreshingly, understands religion well enough to get the importance of it. If you saw a truck bearing down on someone, friend or not, you’d have to hate them quite a lot, and forgo your duty to your fellow human to not let them know, if not push them out of the way! So many people can’t seem to understand this point. They criticize Christians for sharing their faith. (3)Or, is it a problem with the understanding of faith? See our articles on that subject ONETWO. The response should be: how could a caring person NOT share their faith, especially the Christian?

The reason seems to be that people either don’t see it as important enough to be bothered with. Or, they believe it to be false information. This is like the reaction a Green Peace advocate would likely get at the grocery store parking lot in a heavily Republican area. Some believe that trying to save the environment is pointless or detrimental (or at least have a problem with the way some environmental organizations are going about it), so they react negatively. Yet, that environmentalist knows better (or at least believes it to be the case) and takes the initiative to try and convince others of their view. Whether you agree or not, you would have to at least acknowledge their efforts are noble given their beliefs.

Now, of course, there is concern over someone being wrong in what they are proselytizing about. Sometimes that can even be dangerous. For example, people get in trouble for yelling fire in a crowded theatre if there is not a fire. People probably should get in trouble for trying to sell some medical solution which is proven to be ineffective, or worse, harmful. Yet I have seldom come across someone who is opposed to Christians proselytizing who is clear about this being the reason. Even less common is someone who opposes Christian proselytizing because they view it as harmful and can back up that assertion in a reasonable manner. It seems much more knee-jerk in my experience.

There can be inappropriate ways to proselytize. A great example might be that group of religious nuts protesting at the funerals of LGBT people. (4)No matter how you feel about their base position being correct, I’m sorry, that is simply inappropriate, and ironically, quite un-Christian. While the environment is worth being concerned about (5)For a Christian following the Bible, it has to be important. It is part of the most basic mandate given to humanity in Genesis 1:26-28. We’re supposed to multiply (properly raise families) and ‘garden’ or care for the earth. Note that the same Hebrew word translated as ‘ruling’ or ‘having dominion over’ is used for God’s ruling over us and the universe. , some environmentalists have tried to share this message in ways which seem to defeat their purposes. I also have to wonder about some of the street preaching I run across, though some are convinced about doing so. There are certainly some gray areas about how to proselytize effectively and respectfully.

What is not gray though, is the hypocritical nature of most Christians, who on one hand say the Gospel message is the most important thing in the world, yet on the other, seldom share it with anyone, even their closest relationships. (6)Yes, nearly every Christian is a hypocrite on this point to some extent, as am I. Penn is absolutely right on this one! If you know something of critical importance to others, how could you NOT try to convince others of it? He is the type of atheist I wish I ran across more often. He has obviously thought through his position seriously, unlike so many today.

OK, before I get too many emails. . . yes, my title was a cheap play off of the Geico ‘caveman’ commercials. And NO, I am NOT trying to imply atheists are cavemen or unintelligent, etc. However, in my experience, a majority of atheists and skeptics I have encountered DO complain about the proselytizing nature of religion, especially Christianity.

2.

⇡

“Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion.” from this Wikipedia article

3.

⇡

Or, is it a problem with the understanding of faith? See our articles on that subject ONETWO.

4.

⇡

No matter how you feel about their base position being correct, I’m sorry, that is simply inappropriate, and ironically, quite un-Christian.

5.

⇡

For a Christian following the Bible, it has to be important. It is part of the most basic mandate given to humanity in Genesis 1:26-28. We’re supposed to multiply (properly raise families) and ‘garden’ or care for the earth. Note that the same Hebrew word translated as ‘ruling’ or ‘having dominion over’ is used for God’s ruling over us and the universe.

6.

⇡

Yes, nearly every Christian is a hypocrite on this point to some extent, as am I.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/proselytism-so-simple-even-some-atheists-get-it/feed/0Is Apologetic Posting on Internet Sites a Waste of Time?http://www.tilledsoil.org/is-apologetic-posting-on-internet-sites-a-waste-of-time/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/is-apologetic-posting-on-internet-sites-a-waste-of-time/#commentsWed, 30 Mar 2011 22:25:39 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=227I have been posting apologetic type responses and material on the Internet now going on eighteen years (on other types of ‘e-communication’ before the Internet was popular). I don’t usually hang out in atheistic discussion forums, but instead try to inject some reasoned, and/or ‘salt and light,‘ content into secular discussions when relevant. This often leads to discussion which I hope to be more helpful than the back-and-fourth one often finds. I have, however, had many people tell me this is a waste of time! I’ve never gotten into a serious discussion over it with most of these people though, so I don’t know precisely why they believe this. I have picked up on enough in their responses which would indicate a few possibilities: Some seem to suggest that these ‘Internet people’ are unreachable; kind of like the ‘throw pearls before swine’ argument. I’ve heard responses that are just anti-apologetic in nature; like ‘no one has ever been argued into the Kingdom.’ I have heard arguments that make me believe the person thinks that the only place evangelism will likely work is in the church pew. Frankly, about the only good argument I’ve ever heard has something to do with suggestions for better uses of my time. At least that one is debatable (and sometimes, I’m sure, true). The others simply seem like poor theology. If you disagree, that is what the comments section below is for. 😉 Well, for anyone who has ever answered that question ‘yes,’ please listen to the following discussion on Richard Morgan’s conversion to Christianity: http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2011/03/interview-former-atheist-richard-morgan.html With all of this in mind (and hopefully agreed upon), there are some things that many apologists, including myself, can learn about HOW we go about our apologetic efforts. This is especially true on the Internet where things are a bit too anonymous and too easy to just walk away from. We end up acting in ways we would never even consider in an in-person interaction. Richard Morgan, at one point, says of David Robertson’s efforts, “He was always there. He always kept coming back. He remained within the dialog. He kept the communication open. . . regardless of the insults and abuse that he received, he kept coming back.” I have personally strived to do this, but have often failed. I also tend to spread myself too thin to maintain this kind of commitment. This is something I need to work on, and repent of. He makes a great point about the communication consisting of both the facts of the communication, and the words of the conversation. This latter part is the human communication and contact. It is far too easy to lose this aspect when on-line. This means we must work especially hard to be sure this part comes through, and that it is Christian in nature! This often means some extra words need to be spent on clarification and intent, etc. Once again, I have often fallen far short in this regard, try as I may. One aspect that incorporates a founding principal of TilledSoil.org, is when he talked about witnessing doing no good if you are not speaking the language of the person you are talking to. As apologists, we must a) understand our faith well, but also, b) understand the culture we are communicating to! How often have we all experienced both sides of a conversation just arguing or speaking past one-another? This is why we will be adding a lot of ‘Term Definition’ articles to this site as time goes on. Term definition and sensitivity to how terms are being used needs to become a major part of our communication effort. And, ultimately, while I have seen little in the way of swaying the position of those who I’m actually in discussion with (though I pray I will reach them too), I’m more interested, tactically, in the observers of the conversation. These are the thousands of readers who may or may not ever participate in the discussion, are less entrenched in their positions, but who may be influenced by such a conversation. I know this happens because I’ve heard from some of them – sometimes years later. Please take a careful listen to this great interview. And, thank you, Brian Auten, for the work you do over at Apologetics315 in bringing these kinds of interviews to us!

I have been posting apologetic type responses and material on the Internet now going on eighteen years (on other types of ‘e-communication’ before the Internet was popular). I don’t usually hang out in atheistic discussion forums, but instead try to inject some reasoned, and/or ‘salt and light,‘ content into secular discussions when relevant. This often leads to discussion which I hope to be more helpful than the back-and-fourth one often finds. I have, however, had many people tell me this is a waste of time!

I’ve never gotten into a serious discussion over it with most of these people though, so I don’t know precisely why they believe this. I have picked up on enough in their responses which would indicate a few possibilities: Some seem to suggest that these ‘Internet people’ are unreachable; kind of like the ‘throw pearls before swine’ argument. I’ve heard responses that are just anti-apologetic in nature; like ‘no one has ever been argued into the Kingdom.’ I have heard arguments that make me believe the person thinks that the only place evangelism will likely work is in the church pew. Frankly, about the only good argument I’ve ever heard has something to do with suggestions for better uses of my time. At least that one is debatable (and sometimes, I’m sure, true). The others simply seem like poor theology. If you disagree, that is what the comments section below is for.

Well, for anyone who has ever answered that question ‘yes,’ please listen to the following discussion on Richard Morgan’s conversion to Christianity:

With all of this in mind (and hopefully agreed upon), there are some things that many apologists, including myself, can learn about HOW we go about our apologetic efforts. This is especially true on the Internet where things are a bit too anonymous and too easy to just walk away from. We end up acting in ways we would never even consider in an in-person interaction.

Richard Morgan, at one point, says of David Robertson’s efforts, “He was always there. He always kept coming back. He remained within the dialog. He kept the communication open. . . regardless of the insults and abuse that he received, he kept coming back.” I have personally strived to do this, but have often failed. I also tend to spread myself too thin to maintain this kind of commitment. This is something I need to work on, and repent of.

He makes a great point about the communication consisting of both the facts of the communication, and the words of the conversation. This latter part is the human communication and contact. It is far too easy to lose this aspect when on-line. This means we must work especially hard to be sure this part comes through, and that it is Christian in nature! This often means some extra words need to be spent on clarification and intent, etc. Once again, I have often fallen far short in this regard, try as I may.

One aspect that incorporates a founding principal of TilledSoil.org, is when he talked about witnessing doing no good if you are not speaking the language of the person you are talking to. As apologists, we must a) understand our faith well, but also, b) understand the culture we are communicating to! How often have we all experienced both sides of a conversation just arguing or speaking past one-another? This is why we will be adding a lot of ‘Term Definition’ articles to this site as time goes on. Term definition and sensitivity to how terms are being used needs to become a major part of our communication effort.

And, ultimately, while I have seen little in the way of swaying the position of those who I’m actually in discussion with (though I pray I will reach them too), I’m more interested, tactically, in the observers of the conversation. These are the thousands of readers who may or may not ever participate in the discussion, are less entrenched in their positions, but who may be influenced by such a conversation. I know this happens because I’ve heard from some of them – sometimes years later.

Please take a careful listen to this great interview. And, thank you, Brian Auten, for the work you do over at Apologetics315 in bringing these kinds of interviews to us!

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/is-apologetic-posting-on-internet-sites-a-waste-of-time/feed/9Earthquakes, Japan, Religion, and the problem of evil.http://www.tilledsoil.org/earthquakes-japan-religion-and-the-problem-of-evil/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/earthquakes-japan-religion-and-the-problem-of-evil/#respondWed, 23 Mar 2011 00:30:26 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=224I often post when I come across articles on the Internet (1)In the future, I’ll discuss why I think this is so important. Many have said it is a waste of time, but I obviously disagree! such as the recent one in the ‘belief blog’ section of CNN. “Finding faith amid disaster,” by Jessica Ravitz on March 20th was one such article. (2)Just as an aside, my comment still has not been ‘moderated’ (Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:59:10 PM) despite TONS of every sort of crazy comment being published. Anyone see something in it which might trigger it being held? I’ve had this problem with CNN before. I tend to wonder if these sites want real conversation, or just the crazy banter. While Jessica certainly rounded up some big names for comment, I feel they did a very poor job of responding. I’m posting EXACTLY what I responded with, so you can see an example, however imperfect, of what someone trained in apologetics might contribute to the typical static of Internet discussion. I’ll also post a few more comments after to expand on what I said there. We’ll be getting into a much deeper discussion on the ‘problem of evil’ in future posts. (3)I also apologize for the lack of ‘Foundations’ articles and so much ‘In the News’ stuff. Writing good ‘core’ material takes more time, which I won’t have for another month. Also, please pray for and donate money to help Japan, as well as other worthy causes! Here is a good article by World Vision on how to best help in such situations. What the people of Japan need right now is help and comfort, not a deep theological discussion. That said, a good, deep theological discussion help prepare people for this kind of event. Natural events like an earthquake are not ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in themselves, but the way the world was designed to work (without them, there is no advanced life!). So, the real question is not ‘why did this happen?’ or ‘why did God not stop this from happening?’, but ‘why were these people not better prepared, and why did God not protect these people?’ To answer this, we need to understand the rebellion of people (everyone, not just Japan) against God, and against one-another. First, since humanity has rebelled against God, I’m not sure why humanity expects God to let them have their way, yet still protect them from every harm. Second, God has given us really great minds and capabilities to prevent much of this kind of tragedy, yet we don’t really use them to their full potential (whether due to money, or just our wants). I don’t think we should expect God to protect us from everything. We once had that kind of protection and blew it… but we will have it again one day. In the mean time, we could do a MUCH better job of using our wisdom and resources to minimize these kinds of events, if we put our money and resources in the right places rather than our own selfish ways and wants. (Note: Japan was incredibly prepared for this kind of thing compared to most people of the world, but of course, they as well, could have done better.) So, to Sam Harris’ statement, “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist.” … Another option is that maybe God is, to some extent, letting us have our way. A few weeks ago, my little son burned his finger on a pot sitting on the stove. I suppose had I been super-dad, I could have stopped this from happening. I certainly think I exist. I also deeply care that he burned his finger. However, in my not excessively controlling him, he learned about hot pots (which I warned him about many times). I kept him from ultimate harm, while allowing some harm. If I were perfect, I could perfectly control this whole situation, so this isn’t an exact parallel, but I think might teach us something. Yes, God has the power to control everything down the the motion of every sub-atomic particle. Yet, for some reason, He seems to allow a good amount of autonomy. On a cosmic scale, I like to think this is a form of good parenting. I’m sure that doesn’t comfort those harmed or who lost loved ones in Japan’s tragedy. However, God is looking on a bigger scale, just like I, as a dad, am looking on a much bigger scale than my son currently does about his development. This doesn’t ease the pain of these tragedies. It certainly doesn’t make everything clear (the book of Job, the best on the subject in the Bible, doesn’t give us the answer). But, I think it does give us something to ponder compared to some of the silly responses, like that of Harris. First, my heart does break for Japan and all the people who have had their lives destroyed and who have lost loved ones. We need to pray for, commiserate with, and assist these people. There are many excellent ways to do so. Second, I could have said things better than I did. Maybe this is an example of how not to do apologetics in some regards. However, my hope was to ‘put a stone in the shoe’ of some of the readers, especially in the light of Sam Harris’ response. I also really want to emphasize that earthquakes and tsunamis are not evil, but natural aspects of creation. If you study the actual effects of earthquakes on the planet, you soon realize that they are quite beneficial and necessary. We couldn’t live here without them! We also happen to be living at a time in the history of the planet where earthquakes are minimal. What is evil is the damage we humans experience and the suffering, when we could have enjoyed God’s perfect protection, had we not decided to go it on our own […]

I often post when I come across articles on the Internet (1)In the future, I’ll discuss why I think this is so important. Many have said it is a waste of time, but I obviously disagree! such as the recent one in the ‘belief blog’ section of CNN. “Finding faith amid disaster,” by Jessica Ravitz on March 20th was one such article. (2)Just as an aside, my comment still has not been ‘moderated’ (Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:59:10 PM) despite TONS of every sort of crazy comment being published. Anyone see something in it which might trigger it being held? I’ve had this problem with CNN before. I tend to wonder if these sites want real conversation, or just the crazy banter.

While Jessica certainly rounded up some big names for comment, I feel they did a very poor job of responding. I’m posting EXACTLY what I responded with, so you can see an example, however imperfect, of what someone trained in apologetics might contribute to the typical static of Internet discussion. I’ll also post a few more comments after to expand on what I said there. We’ll be getting into a much deeper discussion on the ‘problem of evil’ in future posts. (3)I also apologize for the lack of ‘Foundations’ articles and so much ‘In the News’ stuff. Writing good ‘core’ material takes more time, which I won’t have for another month.

Also, please pray for and donate money to help Japan, as well as other worthy causes! Here is a good article by World Vision on how to best help in such situations.

What the people of Japan need right now is help and comfort, not a deep theological discussion. That said, a good, deep theological discussion help prepare people for this kind of event.

Natural events like an earthquake are not ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in themselves, but the way the world was designed to work (without them, there is no advanced life!). So, the real question is not ‘why did this happen?’ or ‘why did God not stop this from happening?’, but ‘why were these people not better prepared, and why did God not protect these people?’ To answer this, we need to understand the rebellion of people (everyone, not just Japan) against God, and against one-another. First, since humanity has rebelled against God, I’m not sure why humanity expects God to let them have their way, yet still protect them from every harm. Second, God has given us really great minds and capabilities to prevent much of this kind of tragedy, yet we don’t really use them to their full potential (whether due to money, or just our wants). I don’t think we should expect God to protect us from everything. We once had that kind of protection and blew it… but we will have it again one day. In the mean time, we could do a MUCH better job of using our wisdom and resources to minimize these kinds of events, if we put our money and resources in the right places rather than our own selfish ways and wants. (Note: Japan was incredibly prepared for this kind of thing compared to most people of the world, but of course, they as well, could have done better.)

So, to Sam Harris’ statement, “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist.” … Another option is that maybe God is, to some extent, letting us have our way. A few weeks ago, my little son burned his finger on a pot sitting on the stove. I suppose had I been super-dad, I could have stopped this from happening. I certainly think I exist. I also deeply care that he burned his finger. However, in my not excessively controlling him, he learned about hot pots (which I warned him about many times). I kept him from ultimate harm, while allowing some harm. If I were perfect, I could perfectly control this whole situation, so this isn’t an exact parallel, but I think might teach us something.

Yes, God has the power to control everything down the the motion of every sub-atomic particle. Yet, for some reason, He seems to allow a good amount of autonomy. On a cosmic scale, I like to think this is a form of good parenting. I’m sure that doesn’t comfort those harmed or who lost loved ones in Japan’s tragedy. However, God is looking on a bigger scale, just like I, as a dad, am looking on a much bigger scale than my son currently does about his development. This doesn’t ease the pain of these tragedies. It certainly doesn’t make everything clear (the book of Job, the best on the subject in the Bible, doesn’t give us the answer). But, I think it does give us something to ponder compared to some of the silly responses, like that of Harris.

First, my heart does break for Japan and all the people who have had their lives destroyed and who have lost loved ones. We need to pray for, commiserate with, and assist these people. There are many excellent ways to do so.

Second, I could have said things better than I did. Maybe this is an example of how not to do apologetics in some regards. However, my hope was to ‘put a stone in the shoe’ of some of the readers, especially in the light of Sam Harris’ response.

I also really want to emphasize that earthquakes and tsunamis are not evil, but natural aspects of creation. If you study the actual effects of earthquakes on the planet, you soon realize that they are quite beneficial and necessary. We couldn’t live here without them! We also happen to be living at a time in the history of the planet where earthquakes are minimal.

What is evil is the damage we humans experience and the suffering, when we could have enjoyed God’s perfect protection, had we not decided to go it on our own and throw off God’s care. What is also evil is that we could do so much better than we do to protect ourselves and loved ones, but fail to do so for financial or selfish reasons. (4)Buildings and infrastructure could be much better constructed to minimize damage, and humans could choose not to build in places so susceptible to such catastrophes. (Note: Japan was incredibly prepared for such an event compared to just about everyone else in the world.) While in a fallen world, we can’t prevent these kinds of events or perfectly protect ourselves as God could, we can certainly minimize the damage and loss of human life if we keep proper priorities. Japan is actually a great testimony to this, even if it isn’t so obvious at the moment. The damage and loss of life could have been FAR greater!

Sam Harris closes his response with an interesting comment: “It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.” There are a couple of problems here. First, does Sam not think the ‘hearts’ of Christians (or other religions) break as well? Second, is he speaking of ‘heart’ in the physical sense, in which case it doesn’t break, or in the metaphorical sense, which his own worldview precludes? Worldviews matter Sam!

Stay tuned for a much deeper discussion of the various aspects surrounding the ‘problem of evil’ in the months to come. While Christians certainly don’t have all the answers, I think we have better ones than other worldviews (remember, the atheist needs to give an answer as well). These types of events are times when Christians really need to step up with both Christian living (helping our neighbor) as well as using the teaching opportunities to make the Christian worldview more clear (and expose the holes in other worldviews).

In the future, I’ll discuss why I think this is so important. Many have said it is a waste of time, but I obviously disagree!

2.

⇡

Just as an aside, my comment still has not been ‘moderated’ (Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:59:10 PM) despite TONS of every sort of crazy comment being published. Anyone see something in it which might trigger it being held? I’ve had this problem with CNN before. I tend to wonder if these sites want real conversation, or just the crazy banter.

3.

⇡

I also apologize for the lack of ‘Foundations’ articles and so much ‘In the News’ stuff. Writing good ‘core’ material takes more time, which I won’t have for another month.

4.

⇡

Buildings and infrastructure could be much better constructed to minimize damage, and humans could choose not to build in places so susceptible to such catastrophes.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/earthquakes-japan-religion-and-the-problem-of-evil/feed/0Apologetics Canada Conference recaphttp://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-conference-recap/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-conference-recap/#commentsWed, 09 Mar 2011 02:33:54 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=212Last weekend, I attended the Apologetics Canada Conference (put on by Apologetics.com and other partner ministries) in Coquitlam, B.C. Canada (kind of a ‘suburb’ of Vancouver; hope that doesn’t offend anyone 🙂 ). I was excited to listen to some great lectures by some top folks in the apologetics world. I was especially excited to finally meet one of my heroes of apologetics, Greg Koukl. Yes, I do now have an autographed copy of “Tactics” which I need to read soon (though I’ve heard a lot about it already). My unsigned copy will probably now be passed around to many brothers and sisters in Christ. It was an excellent conference, however, what stuck me most about it, were several things I had not anticipated. First, there was the turnout! From my understanding, the organizers had been hoping and praying to get a couple hundred people. God answered, maybe a bit too much. The facility had a capacity of 600, and I heard they sold out and were turning people away to keep the fire marshal happy. Amazing! Second, the diversity of people there. There were youth to elderly and in-between, whole families, men AND women! (If this doesn’t strike you as odd, you maybe haven’t been around apologetics too long 😉 ). I’m hoping this is a signal of great change in this field. I recently ‘retweeted’ a similar Twitter sentiment from fellow apologist Mary Jo Sharp, “I am overwhelmed at how great the response to apologetics has been at the SBTC women’s conferences this year.” As I said in response to my previous post on the conference, this WARMS MY HEART! Third, the atmosphere! People were genuinely excited. You could just feel it in the air. The worship team, Ethos (1)Kudos to the Ethos team and many thanks. I’ve been around and have played with a number of talented worship bands over the years, and you folks were top notch!, contributed to this atmosphere, turning it from what some might imagine to be a ‘dry conference’ to an excellent time of worship in all that took place! The organizers included several times of worship throughout, which was an excellent idea. Note: Friday night, I felt the song selection was a bit off (2)Worship leaders need to always be measuring the music against metrics of both theological depth and worshiper participation. The latter seemed to be having some issues Friday night., but Saturday, was just excellent all day! In summary, I was overwhelmed by the conference in a very good way which was extremely encouraging as I push forward in the ministry of TilledSoil.org. Thank you! Some notes about the conference content: Greg Koukl started the conference on Friday night. He spoke about the topic of New Atheism. He highlighted how the new atheists really see religion as dangerous, hence their tone. These people tend to be rhetorically powerful in their presentation. They also tend to shot-gun objections, hoping to win by sheer number (again, a rhetorical approach). I’ve run into this quite a bit in my discussions with atheists, especially on-line. They just keep tossing out objections, and hardly stick to anything that is being discussed. He then said that their challenges could be boiled down to their saying that reason, science, and morality are on their side. He then walked through each of these, showing how this is not the case. He also pointed out how when you read the New Atheists works, try to get rid of the ‘trash-talk’ (ex: Christians are dumb; God is a crutch; . . . therefore you are wrong) and ‘silly-logic’ (ex: God made the universe, so then who made God?) aspects of their work. Once you do, you should be down to a few issues to address, rather than a whole bunch (which seem overwhelming). On Saturday, Dr. Craig Hazen spoke on the Resurrection of Christ. Christianity, in many ways, is a testable religion. In fact, the main tenant of Christianity is testable (1 Cor. 15). The big way to defend the resurrection is actually quite simple. Jesus was alive at point A, dead at point B, and alive again at point C. There is really no serious disagreement on A or B. He distributed an excellent flow-chart to look at all the possibilities of C, and where they fall apart. (I guess Gary Habarmas was the architect of the method.) Of all the options, the only ones that reasonably account for the historical data (on which most everyone agrees, btw), is either that a) Jesus was an alien (think StarTrek transporters and stuff), or b) Jesus resurrected. We’ll certainly be doing a more full exposition on Christ’s resurrection in a future blog. Dr. John Mark Reynolds then spoke on ‘The War of Worldviews.’ (my notes are more sketchy here, but I’ll toss out a couple points) He said there are a couple kinds of atheists: ‘religious’ non-believers who don’t have to think about this stuff, because Dawkins said religious people are stupid; and more classical atheists who come from a line of atheism which began in wishing there was no god(s). He said the beginnings of atheism came from humanity being the play-things of Zeus (or other gods). In other words, anything was better than becoming that, even ceasing to exist. The science tie with atheism is a much more recent thing. One thing he noted that was very important, is that in some circles, Christians are just as guilty as the atheists in their misbehavior in discussion. He listed some of the main reasons he is a Christian: 1) we have to ask whether we live in a cosmos or a chaos? 2) how does one account for beauty? (even the bottom of the ocean, which few see, is beautiful). Why does beauty help in math, logic, and science? (Why Ockham’s Razor?) He notes that the selection of helio-centrism over geo-centrism wasn’t initially made on the basis of empirical science, but beauty. 3) The problem of ‘is’ to ‘ought.’ Basically the […]

Last weekend, I attended the Apologetics Canada Conference (put on by Apologetics.com and other partner ministries) in Coquitlam, B.C. Canada (kind of a ‘suburb’ of Vancouver; hope that doesn’t offend anyone ). I was excited to listen to some great lectures by some top folks in the apologetics world. I was especially excited to finally meet one of my heroes of apologetics, Greg Koukl. Yes, I do now have an autographed copy of “Tactics” which I need to read soon (though I’ve heard a lot about it already). My unsigned copy will probably now be passed around to many brothers and sisters in Christ.

It was an excellent conference, however, what stuck me most about it, were several things I had not anticipated. First, there was the turnout! From my understanding, the organizers had been hoping and praying to get a couple hundred people. God answered, maybe a bit too much. The facility had a capacity of 600, and I heard they sold out and were turning people away to keep the fire marshal happy. Amazing!

Second, the diversity of people there. There were youth to elderly and in-between, whole families, men AND women! (If this doesn’t strike you as odd, you maybe haven’t been around apologetics too long ). I’m hoping this is a signal of great change in this field. I recently ‘retweeted’ a similar Twitter sentiment from fellow apologist Mary Jo Sharp, “I am overwhelmed at how great the response to apologetics has been at the SBTC women’s conferences this year.” As I said in response to my previous post on the conference, this WARMS MY HEART!

Third, the atmosphere! People were genuinely excited. You could just feel it in the air. The worship team, Ethos (1)Kudos to the Ethos team and many thanks. I’ve been around and have played with a number of talented worship bands over the years, and you folks were top notch!, contributed to this atmosphere, turning it from what some might imagine to be a ‘dry conference’ to an excellent time of worship in all that took place! The organizers included several times of worship throughout, which was an excellent idea. Note: Friday night, I felt the song selection was a bit off (2)Worship leaders need to always be measuring the music against metrics of both theological depth and worshiper participation. The latter seemed to be having some issues Friday night., but Saturday, was just excellent all day!

In summary, I was overwhelmed by the conference in a very good way which was extremely encouraging as I push forward in the ministry of TilledSoil.org. Thank you!

Some notes about the conference content:

Greg Koukl started the conference on Friday night. He spoke about the topic of New Atheism. He highlighted how the new atheists really see religion as dangerous, hence their tone. These people tend to be rhetorically powerful in their presentation.

They also tend to shot-gun objections, hoping to win by sheer number (again, a rhetorical approach). I’ve run into this quite a bit in my discussions with atheists, especially on-line. They just keep tossing out objections, and hardly stick to anything that is being discussed.

He then said that their challenges could be boiled down to their saying that reason, science, and morality are on their side. He then walked through each of these, showing how this is not the case.

He also pointed out how when you read the New Atheists works, try to get rid of the ‘trash-talk’ (ex: Christians are dumb; God is a crutch; . . . therefore you are wrong) and ‘silly-logic’ (ex: God made the universe, so then who made God?) aspects of their work. Once you do, you should be down to a few issues to address, rather than a whole bunch (which seem overwhelming).

On Saturday, Dr. Craig Hazen spoke on the Resurrection of Christ. Christianity, in many ways, is a testable religion. In fact, the main tenant of Christianity is testable (1 Cor. 15). The big way to defend the resurrection is actually quite simple. Jesus was alive at point A, dead at point B, and alive again at point C. There is really no serious disagreement on A or B. He distributed an excellent flow-chart to look at all the possibilities of C, and where they fall apart. (I guess Gary Habarmas was the architect of the method.)

Of all the options, the only ones that reasonably account for the historical data (on which most everyone agrees, btw), is either that a) Jesus was an alien (think StarTrek transporters and stuff), or b) Jesus resurrected. We’ll certainly be doing a more full exposition on Christ’s resurrection in a future blog.

Dr. John Mark Reynolds then spoke on ‘The War of Worldviews.’ (my notes are more sketchy here, but I’ll toss out a couple points) He said there are a couple kinds of atheists: ‘religious’ non-believers who don’t have to think about this stuff, because Dawkins said religious people are stupid; and more classical atheists who come from a line of atheism which began in wishing there was no god(s). He said the beginnings of atheism came from humanity being the play-things of Zeus (or other gods). In other words, anything was better than becoming that, even ceasing to exist. The science tie with atheism is a much more recent thing.

One thing he noted that was very important, is that in some circles, Christians are just as guilty as the atheists in their misbehavior in discussion.

He listed some of the main reasons he is a Christian:

1) we have to ask whether we live in a cosmos or a chaos? 2) how does one account for beauty? (even the bottom of the ocean, which few see, is beautiful). Why does beauty help in math, logic, and science? (Why Ockham’s Razor?) He notes that the selection of helio-centrism over geo-centrism wasn’t initially made on the basis of empirical science, but beauty. 3) The problem of ‘is’ to ‘ought.’ Basically the argument from morality. The problem of evil is a huge problem without God.

He listed some of the main reasons he is a Christian:1) we have to ask whether we live in a cosmos or a chaos? 2) how does one account for beauty? (even the bottom of the ocean, which few see, is beautiful). Why does beauty help in math, logic, and science? (Why Ockham’s Razor?) He notes that the selection of helio-centrism over geo-centrism wasn’t initially made on the basis of empirical science, but beauty. 3) The problem of ‘is’ to ‘ought.’ Basically the argument from morality. The problem of evil is a huge problem without God.

There were a number of great breakout sessions on a number of topics in the afternoon.

The concluding keynote was given by Dr. Steven Collins, who is the Dean of the College of Archeology at Trinity Southwest University in New Mexico and director of the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project, which is basically looking at the city of Sodom and others in the area.

I especially enjoyed this lecture because it was something quite new to me. It is also interesting because so few seem to believe in the historicity of the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) these days.

He said that the location of the city on most Biblical maps is not only in the wrong place, but usually even has a question mark by it. He says this is because of the work of William Albright, and that since, scholars have not paid attention to all the Biblical witness in Genesis 13:1-12.

The detail of this lecture was incredible. I’ll just try to give a few of the important points. First, how this ends up will have an impact on dating of the Genesis events, ie: bronze age or late iron age. Sodom has more Biblical geographical indicators to its location than Jerusalem or Ai. Sodom was bigger than Jerusalem by a factor of 10. Sodom occupations are early to middle bronze age. Sodom is located on the best agricultural land in the region, yet was uninhabited for 5-7 centuries after it’s destruction. Bronze age layer is sitting in over 1 meter of ash with sulfur smell. So, 2500 years of continuous occupation, then nothing for 5-7 centuries? Sodom is over square kilometer in size.

Then he talked about the destruction layer. I think most of that is unpublished, and was found just this last year. Bodies ripped and torn apart, of all ages, yet it happened very quickly. Bricks and rocks show extreme heat. Zircons turned into to bubbles at over 2000 degrees.

He also notes that the Arc of the Covenant would have probably been sitting where the Sodom temple was located (good one, God!), before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, and that it was probably the Israelites who began to resettle the area. Most other cultures would have been too afraid to after it’s destruction (hence uninhabited for so long).

NOTE: Sodom – Apologists have to be quite careful about this kind of thing until the work is published, the findings are reviewed, etc. However, I would tend to side with Dr. Collins’ theories, as the general history of archeological evidence seems to keep confirming the Bible as time goes on, rather than the skeptics and liberal Bible scholars. It’s a wait and see situation before I’d put too much weight on this.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-conference-recap/feed/2Of Bell and Hellhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/of-bell-and-hell/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/of-bell-and-hell/#commentsTue, 08 Mar 2011 18:21:34 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=207For those who follow the media related to Christianity, you have probably not missed the buzz surrounding Rob Bell’s upcoming book “Love Wins.” Until someone has actually read it, it might be wise to speak with caution. However, the publisher has certainly done a good job of marketing by stirring the pot! In my opinion, though, the fact that this is getting this much attention points to an apologetic problem in our churches. (1)For those out of the loop, it might be interesting to note that Rob Bell actually made it in the top 10 most mentioned topics on Twitter. Think about that for a moment. What is that problem you ask? It is the problem that many Christians today (let alone the general public) seem to be having with the doctrine of Hell. I think it was R.C. Sproul I once heard note that nearly everything we know about Hell comes from the lips of Jesus! Maybe God realized that due to our depravity, we’d try to wiggle our way out of that one, so He told us directly, rather than leaving it up to apostles who might be doubted more easily. But if Jesus taught this doctrine, and so strongly, why are Christians having such a problem with it? Noting that authors often do not get to pick the final title of their books, the title ‘Love Wins’ actually says a quite a bit. It immediately sets up a dichotomy between love and something. What is this other thing? Justice (ie: hell). Once one sets up such a dichotomy, a number of problems arise. First, it would seem to be setting up a misunderstanding of love. There can be no real love without justice. Second, it would make reading and understanding the Bible quite difficult. To put this really simply, and make it memorable: You can’t have John 3:16 without Luke 3:16! (2)Thanks to Greg Koukl of str.org for discussing Luke 3:16, which helped me make this connection. And, lest you be a bit too Pentecostal and misunderstand Luke 3:16 alone, be sure to keep reading v17. The baptism with fire here isn’t referring to those little tongues of fire on the apostles’ heads. Throughout the Bible, we clearly see demonstrations of God’s love and justice. They are not in opposition to one another. John 3:16 often gets thrown out there (in isolation and out of context) but many of the justice verses aren’t quite so familiar. If they are familiar, they are too often ignored. As for Rob Bell, I guess we will have to wait and see. From other things I’ve been reading about him, it nearly seems we’re deciding if he is a heretic or merely heterodox at this point (universalist or annihilationist). Either view is problematic, as the first shows one doesn’t understand (or agree with) the Bible, while the latter, at least shows one isn’t thinking theologically. (3)Does the Bible give us any reason to believe our souls are not eternal? If saved souls are eternal, why wouldn’t damned ones be? (Note: I may well have to give this point up, see discussion below… our souls likely aren’t eternal apart from God’s upholding power. Though, I still ask why God would treat them differently: saved/unsaved.) The reason I say this illustrates an apologetic problem for our church and culture, is that the very fact that such a book gains a popular hearing, shows the majority of people aren’t very informed on the subject. But, this cloud has a silver lining as well. It is brining a topic like this into general public conversation. This gives well prepared Christians a great opportunity to speak with others about a subject which might otherwise be pretty socially taboo. But, I fear that, unfortunately, few Christians have been properly equipped for such a conversation. Yet another illustration of why apologetics training is so crucial! (4)Time to add to our to-do list, an article on the doctrine of hell. Update: Wednesday, March 9, 2011 Due to some of the comments I have received, I decided I should include some things in an update. First, I should probably apologize for my “isn’t thinking theologically” comment, as I can now see that someone could come to such a conclusion thinking the issue through theologically. Maybe a more precise way to express what I was trying to say, is that, IMO, they can’t do so AND also fully encompass the Biblical witness (data). (Note: Annihilationists generally argue that the below verses are actually taken out of context (based on O.T. background or genre) or that the eternality refers to the destruction, not to the torment and eternality of the soul. See my next ‘Update’ below for further details.) Also, to expand a bit more into the Biblical witness: Matt. 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; . . . 46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (same Greek word used for ‘eternal’ in both cases) Rev. 14:9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” 12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. (the duration of the torment is the same as for God’s glory, […]

For those who follow the media related to Christianity, you have probably not missed the buzz surrounding Rob Bell’s upcoming book “Love Wins.” Until someone has actually read it, it might be wise to speak with caution. However, the publisher has certainly done a good job of marketing by stirring the pot! In my opinion, though, the fact that this is getting this much attention points to an apologetic problem in our churches. (1)For those out of the loop, it might be interesting to note that Rob Bell actually made it in the top 10 most mentioned topics on Twitter. Think about that for a moment.

What is that problem you ask? It is the problem that many Christians today (let alone the general public) seem to be having with the doctrine of Hell. I think it was R.C. Sproul I once heard note that nearly everything we know about Hell comes from the lips of Jesus! Maybe God realized that due to our depravity, we’d try to wiggle our way out of that one, so He told us directly, rather than leaving it up to apostles who might be doubted more easily. But if Jesus taught this doctrine, and so strongly, why are Christians having such a problem with it?

Noting that authors often do not get to pick the final title of their books, the title ‘Love Wins’ actually says a quite a bit. It immediately sets up a dichotomy between love and something. What is this other thing? Justice (ie: hell). Once one sets up such a dichotomy, a number of problems arise. First, it would seem to be setting up a misunderstanding of love. There can be no real love without justice. Second, it would make reading and understanding the Bible quite difficult. To put this really simply, and make it memorable:

You can’t have John 3:16 without Luke 3:16!(2)Thanks to Greg Koukl of str.org for discussing Luke 3:16, which helped me make this connection. And, lest you be a bit too Pentecostal and misunderstand Luke 3:16 alone, be sure to keep reading v17. The baptism with fire here isn’t referring to those little tongues of fire on the apostles’ heads.

Throughout the Bible, we clearly see demonstrations of God’s love and justice. They are not in opposition to one another. John 3:16 often gets thrown out there (in isolation and out of context) but many of the justice verses aren’t quite so familiar. If they are familiar, they are too often ignored.

As for Rob Bell, I guess we will have to wait and see. From other things I’ve been reading about him, it nearly seems we’re deciding if he is a heretic or merely heterodox at this point (universalist or annihilationist). Either view is problematic, as the first shows one doesn’t understand (or agree with) the Bible, while the latter, at least shows one isn’t thinking theologically. (3)Does the Bible give us any reason to believe our souls are not eternal? If saved souls are eternal, why wouldn’t damned ones be? (Note: I may well have to give this point up, see discussion below… our souls likely aren’t eternal apart from God’s upholding power. Though, I still ask why God would treat them differently: saved/unsaved.)

The reason I say this illustrates an apologetic problem for our church and culture, is that the very fact that such a book gains a popular hearing, shows the majority of people aren’t very informed on the subject. But, this cloud has a silver lining as well. It is brining a topic like this into general public conversation. This gives well prepared Christians a great opportunity to speak with others about a subject which might otherwise be pretty socially taboo. But, I fear that, unfortunately, few Christians have been properly equipped for such a conversation. Yet another illustration of why apologetics training is so crucial! (4)Time to add to our to-do list, an article on the doctrine of hell.

Update: Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Due to some of the comments I have received, I decided I should include some things in an update.

First, I should probably apologize for my “isn’t thinking theologically” comment, as I can now see that someone could come to such a conclusion thinking the issue through theologically. Maybe a more precise way to express what I was trying to say, is that, IMO, they can’t do so AND also fully encompass the Biblical witness (data). (Note: Annihilationists generally argue that the below verses are actually taken out of context (based on O.T. background or genre) or that the eternality refers to the destruction, not to the torment and eternality of the soul. See my next ‘Update’ below for further details.)

Also, to expand a bit more into the Biblical witness:

Matt. 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; . . . 46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(same Greek word used for ‘eternal’ in both cases)

Rev. 14:9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” 12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

(the duration of the torment is the same as for God’s glory, throne, dominion, etc. ‘forever and ever’ used all over the place; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 1:8, 13:21; 1Pet 4:11, 5:11; Rev 1:6, 4:9, 5:13, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 19:3, 20:10, 22:5; not just the English, but in the Greek too, btw)

Also, some other Biblical data to consider:

John 6:40 “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Rom. 6:22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2Th. 1:9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power

Rev 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

I admit that there is also a lot of destruction language, and language which appears as if one will cease to exist unless being upheld by God’s power, or given the gift. I agree. The soul isn’t some kind of immortal entity apart from the upholding power of God, if that is the argument going on between Greek philosophical views and Biblical ones (as pointed out by the comments below).

Also, I know it a metaphor, but: what are the worms that do not die eating? and the eternal fire consuming?

As a wise theology prof (5)Dr. Stackhouse of Regent College, though I’ll leave it up to him if he wants to take any credit for what I’ve said here. once told me, we need to be careful on terms like infinite and eternal. Infinite is more of a spatial or quantity/intensity type term as apposed to eternal which is more duration oriented or a quality. When speaking of God’s punishment and justice, perfect might be a better term. For example, God’s patience isn’t infinite, but perfect.

So, we can certainly say that those not covered by the blood of Christ will be perfectly judged and punished. But, does this require annihilation and if so, can that fit the Biblical witness? I’m still going to have to say no.

Update: Saturday, April 7, 2012

First, I want to reiterate what I said just above: that regardless of which view is correct (the ‘traditional’ eternal torment or the annihilationist), we need to think in terms of God’s perfect justice. We need to be focused on that aspect and that we create a ‘box’ which sets some boundaries to whatever viewpoints we consider. For example, the Bible clearly rules out universalism (that all will be saved, which seems to be where Bell headed), or that we rest our argument on the basis that a loving God wouldn’t give an eternal punishment (again, where Bell seems to head), or that everything is over at death, no judgement, no punishment beyond ceasing of existence. These are all unbiblical, and not within the camps of what we’re discussing here (though some annihilationists might go there).

Since I posted the original article and first update, I have been privileged to run across a good deal of more information (see below) on the topic, especially clarifying some of the best of the annihilationist position. I am actually finding it to be quite convincing, and have been disappointed by the response from the ‘traditional’ camp. That said: WARNING! – Whenever you consider a position which runs against the tide of historical orthodoxy, proceed with caution! While I found the arguments well laid out and quite convincing, I’ve also not put the time into studying to the other side (in this case, the ‘traditional’ view of eternal torment) with equal depth. I’m also not convinced that this resource found the best of the other side, despite the effort to do so.

My fellow apologist, Chris Date over at Theopologetics ran a series of podcasts which addressed the annihilationist position in great depth. I would recommend checking them out if you are interested in this topic. But, as warned above, this may only represent one side of the argument deeply. As I told Chris in an e-mail, however, this has greatly increased my respect for the position, correcting many misconceptions I had about it. It also, in my opinion, moves at least the views expressed in this version of annihilationism within the realm of Christian orthodoxy (something holders of this view have often not been privilege to in how they were treated).

Theopologetics podcasts on annihilationism (I found #72, #73, and #74 most helpful in understanding their view):

For those out of the loop, it might be interesting to note that Rob Bell actually made it in the top 10 most mentioned topics on Twitter. Think about that for a moment.

2.

⇡

Thanks to Greg Koukl of str.org for discussing Luke 3:16, which helped me make this connection. And, lest you be a bit too Pentecostal and misunderstand Luke 3:16 alone, be sure to keep reading v17. The baptism with fire here isn’t referring to those little tongues of fire on the apostles’ heads.

3.

⇡

Does the Bible give us any reason to believe our souls are not eternal? If saved souls are eternal, why wouldn’t damned ones be? (Note: I may well have to give this point up, see discussion below… our souls likely aren’t eternal apart from God’s upholding power. Though, I still ask why God would treat them differently: saved/unsaved.

4.

⇡

Time to add to our to-do list, an article on the doctrine of hell.

5.

⇡

Dr. Stackhouse of Regent College, though I’ll leave it up to him if he wants to take any credit for what I’ve said here.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/of-bell-and-hell/feed/10Apologetics Canada Conference in Vancouver areahttp://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-conference-in-vancouver-area/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-conference-in-vancouver-area/#commentsThu, 10 Feb 2011 21:48:40 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=199TilledSoil.org is excited about the Apologetics Canada Conference coming to Coquitlam, B.C. soon! If you are interested in Christian apologetics and live near the area, or can get here somehow, this is an event not to be missed. We hope to see you there. Please see their web-site for more information. Apologetics Canada Conference http://www.apologeticscanadaconference.ca/ March 4th – 5th, 2011 Friday: 7:00pm – 9:00pm Saturday: 9:00am – 5:00pm Coquitlam Alliance Church, Coquitlam, BC. Speakers include: Greg Koukl, Dr. Steven Collins, Dr. Craig Hazen, Dr. John Mark Reynolds and more.

]]>TilledSoil.org is excited about the Apologetics Canada Conference coming to Coquitlam, B.C. soon! If you are interested in Christian apologetics and live near the area, or can get here somehow, this is an event not to be missed. We hope to see you there. Please see their web-site for more information.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-canada-conference-in-vancouver-area/feed/2Creation vs Evolution – 4 viewshttp://www.tilledsoil.org/creation-vs-evolution-4-views/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/creation-vs-evolution-4-views/#commentsMon, 31 Jan 2011 09:42:40 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=184While some apologetics issues remain the same through the ages, such as, ‘Did Christ rise on Easter morning?‘ or ‘Does God exist?‘ many depend on specific challenges Christianity is facing at a specific time. This article aims to equip you to answer one of the hottest apologetic topics Christians face today, creation vs evolution. And, this topic can often be as heated (or more so) between Christians than between the Christian and unbeliever. Yet, it does not need to be this way. With a bit of education on the subject, everyone should be able to discuss it without all the heat, even if they ultimately disagree. Sadly, because of this heat, many have chosen to avoid the details, focusing only on what Genesis 1 is ultimately about. I think this is a crucial mistake for Christian apologetics. By the time you finish this article, you should have a basic foundation on which to build, as well as have a bit respect for the positions others hold. That said, a few points need to be made before digging in. First, this issue should NOT DIVIDE Christians. It simply is not a mark of whether someone is a Christian or not. The real debate here is between creation (or theism) and naturalism, not different possible methods of creation. Part of the reason this discussion does get so heated between Christians, is usually that they think the other group isn’t taking the Bible seriously enough. This could be the case, but should not be assumed. I have met people from each camp who take the Bible VERY seriously. Much of the importance of understanding this debate is to be able to clarify it to people outside of Christianity. Most assume a Christian will be a ‘Creationist’, and by that, they mean Young Earth Creationist. Many believe these Christians are opposed to science, progress, technology, etc. They also often fear that Christians want to take over the science classroom to train students about Christianity. If these fears were true (and they sometimes are), these people have a legitimate concern. By properly understanding the positions, you can explain your position in an intelligent manner. Even if you end up being one of those ‘feared’ Young Earth Creationists, you can distance yourself from the main things these people are afraid of: you are fine with science, properly understood; you don’t want to force Christianity on anyone; and you can pull out your iPod to show them you indeed do embrace progress and technology. 😉 I won’t be going into great detail on any of the positions. There will be future articles with more details on each position. It is also important to note that TilledSoil.org does not have an official position, yet it will become obvious which position this particular author is most convinced of at this time. Be sure you are familiar with the range of what people can mean by the term evolution before continuing on. Please see our previous article on this: http://www.tilledsoil.org/2010/08/12/evolution-understanding-the-term/ Four Basic Positions There are actually a lot of different views on how life came about and has changed over time, however, they can be roughly summarized into four main categories. Below, I have listed each category, along with a brief characterization. Then I have listed some potential advantages and disadvantages of each view. Finally, I have listed a figure associated with that view. Young earth creationism (YEC): 7, 24 hour days; ~6000 year old earth; literal, historical Genesis + thwarts naturalistic evolution – helps explain some possible science anomalies uncovered from time to time – seems to match a natural reading of Genesis – solves pre-fall problems with death and natural ‘evil’ (earthquakes, etc.) – hard to square with mainstream science (or OEC people might say, the ‘book of creation’) – seems to call God’s nature into question (would God trick us?) – requires what might be a literalistic reading of Genesis – tends to create a major division between mainstream science and Christianity. (ex: Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis (1)Note: AiG (especially Ken Ham), sometimes seems uncharitable towards other organizations & Christians who do not share his/their view – in a manner which TilledSoil.org does not condone. Aside from this, as I listen to Ken Ham’s podcast, I catch him in basic exegetical mistakes (any seminary student would catch) and logic/critical thinking errors far too often. Even if he is correct about his YEC view, I do not feel he is a good representation of it. I’ve listed him because he is the most popular figure associated with the view. I’ve been told that some of the other AiG resources still justify this ministry overall, but I’d recommend Dr Jay Wile or CRI as resources.) Old earth creationism (OEC; progressive creationism): day = period of time; earth billions of years old; literary, but historical, Genesis + allows for a historical reading of Genesis – squares Scripture with much of mainstream science – better covers the entire Biblical witness – danger of tying scientific discovery too closely to a particular interpretation of Scripture – disagreement over where the historical / metaphorical division lies – requires what some see as interpretational gymnastics (ex: Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe) Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation): God is involved with the evolutionary process (how and to what extent varies greatly in this view) – a metaphorical understanding of the first chapters of Genesis + allows for complete (or at lest indisputable) agreement between mainstream science and Scripture – requires some theological gymnastics – disagreement over where the historical / metaphorical divisions are. (ex: Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos.org) (2)Another source which does a better job of addressing the theological implications is “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution” by Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. Haarsma Naturalistic evolution: life came about by chance (they would dispute this term), then was driven forward through natural selection – God is irrelevant to the conversation (though many in this camp would be atheists, or at least agnostic) + […]

While some apologetics issues remain the same through the ages, such as, ‘Did Christ rise on Easter morning?‘ or ‘Does God exist?‘ many depend on specific challenges Christianity is facing at a specific time. This article aims to equip you to answer one of the hottest apologetic topics Christians face today, creation vs evolution. And, this topic can often be as heated (or more so) between Christians than between the Christian and unbeliever.

Yet, it does not need to be this way. With a bit of education on the subject, everyone should be able to discuss it without all the heat, even if they ultimately disagree. Sadly, because of this heat, many have chosen to avoid the details, focusing only on what Genesis 1 is ultimately about. I think this is a crucial mistake for Christian apologetics.

By the time you finish this article, you should have a basic foundation on which to build, as well as have a bit respect for the positions others hold.

That said, a few points need to be made before digging in. First, this issue should NOT DIVIDE Christians. It simply is not a mark of whether someone is a Christian or not. The real debate here is between creation (or theism) and naturalism, not different possible methods of creation. Part of the reason this discussion does get so heated between Christians, is usually that they think the other group isn’t taking the Bible seriously enough. This could be the case, but should not be assumed. I have met people from each camp who take the Bible VERY seriously.

Much of the importance of understanding this debate is to be able to clarify it to people outside of Christianity. Most assume a Christian will be a ‘Creationist’, and by that, they mean Young Earth Creationist. Many believe these Christians are opposed to science, progress, technology, etc. They also often fear that Christians want to take over the science classroom to train students about Christianity. If these fears were true (and they sometimes are), these people have a legitimate concern. By properly understanding the positions, you can explain your position in an intelligent manner. Even if you end up being one of those ‘feared’ Young Earth Creationists, you can distance yourself from the main things these people are afraid of: you are fine with science, properly understood; you don’t want to force Christianity on anyone; and you can pull out your iPod to show them you indeed do embrace progress and technology.

I won’t be going into great detail on any of the positions. There will be future articles with more details on each position. It is also important to note that TilledSoil.org does not have an official position, yet it will become obvious which position this particular author is most convinced of at this time.

There are actually a lot of different views on how life came about and has changed over time, however, they can be roughly summarized into four main categories. Below, I have listed each category, along with a brief characterization. Then I have listed some potential advantages and disadvantages of each view. Finally, I have listed a figure associated with that view.

+ thwarts naturalistic evolution – helps explain some possible science anomalies uncovered from time to time – seems to match a natural reading of Genesis – solves pre-fall problems with death and natural ‘evil’ (earthquakes, etc.)

– hard to square with mainstream science (or OEC people might say, the ‘book of creation’) – seems to call God’s nature into question (would God trick us?) – requires what might be a literalistic reading of Genesis – tends to create a major division between mainstream science and Christianity.

(ex: Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis(1)Note: AiG (especially Ken Ham), sometimes seems uncharitable towards other organizations & Christians who do not share his/their view – in a manner which TilledSoil.org does not condone. Aside from this, as I listen to Ken Ham’s podcast, I catch him in basic exegetical mistakes (any seminary student would catch) and logic/critical thinking errors far too often. Even if he is correct about his YEC view, I do not feel he is a good representation of it. I’ve listed him because he is the most popular figure associated with the view. I’ve been told that some of the other AiG resources still justify this ministry overall, but I’d recommend Dr Jay Wile or CRI as resources.)

Old earth creationism (OEC; progressive creationism): day = period of time; earth billions of years old; literary, but historical, Genesis

+ allows for a historical reading of Genesis – squares Scripture with much of mainstream science – better covers the entire Biblical witness

– danger of tying scientific discovery too closely to a particular interpretation of Scripture – disagreement over where the historical / metaphorical division lies – requires what some see as interpretational gymnastics

Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation): God is involved with the evolutionary process (how and to what extent varies greatly in this view) – a metaphorical understanding of the first chapters of Genesis

Naturalistic evolution: life came about by chance (they would dispute this term), then was driven forward through natural selection – God is irrelevant to the conversation (though many in this camp would be atheists, or at least agnostic)

+ for the naturalist… no need for god / super-natural – is thought to allow pure ‘science’ with no dependencies on other disciplines such as philosophy, theology, etc.

– opens a can of worms in many areas if the conclusion is that there is no God – contradicts Christian belief – explaining evolutionary ‘convergence’ is a problem – natural selection needs life to begin with.

(ex: Richard Dawkins, biologist, atheist, author of “God Delusion“)

This ‘chart’ should be pretty easy to digest and contains the basics. I am now going to comment a bit on each. Again, it will probably be obvious which viewpoint I prefer. However, you should examine the evidence for each and draw your own conclusion. Also, don’t worry if you do not understand some of the +/- points. They are mainly to give you a starting point for conversation.

Young earth creationism is a view pretty familiar to most of us. They generally believe that roughly 6,000 years ago, God spoke creation into existence. Each day of God’s work in the Biblical text of Genesis 1 was what we know as a 24-hour solar day on earth. Often this view is labeled as ‘Creationism’. It is one form of creationism, but we need to remind both outsiders and young earth creationists that ALL Christians believe in creation, even the theistic evolutionists (whether they realize/admit it or not!). Their primary concern seems to be that other views do not take Scripture seriously or trust the miraculous capacity of God. They rightly recognize the danger of naturalistic evolution, but sometimes pick their battles against it out of (in my opinion) misunderstanding.

Young earth creationism is often seen as a ‘literal’ reading of the first chapters of Genesis. However, I think that might not be entirely accurate. There is the fact that Genesis is a different genre than a ‘science text’ or a ‘writing of history’ (as the evolutionary creationist would argue), but I mean something a bit different. I am talking more about a careful reading of clues which are right before us in the Bible. Some of these include: that Genesis isn’t the only description of creation in the Bible (cf: Job, Psalms, etc.); there is no day and night on the 7th day; Adam must have worked extremely quickly and been incredibly impatient (cf. Genesis 2:23). There is also an issue with the interpretation of Hebrew ‘yom’ or day in English. We will address this later, but these points should clue us into the fact that the debate is a bit deeper than ‘literal’ vs ‘non-literal.’ (note: regarding science, some in this camp seem to be quite hostile towards it, almost taking an anti-intellectual stance, while others take it quite seriously and insist that mainstream science is in error… once these errors are corrected, the Bible and science square quite well.)

Old earth creationism (or better Progressive creationism to differentiate them from theistic evolution, as they also believe in an old earth) is a view that is kind of mid-way between young earth and theistic evolution. They try to take both the Bible and science seriously. They do not see a problem between Genesis 1 and what mainstream science has discovered (for the most part), other than some of the conclusions which science has imposed on the data out of a naturalistic worldview (i.e.: macro evolution, etc.). They believe the earth is billions of years old, and that the ‘days’ in genesis can be explained as periods of time in God’s creative work, centered around major events. They do believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, but that it must be understood within its genre and in context to the entire Biblical record (which they see to actually be reading it even MORE literally than the young earth creationists). In other words, a young earth reading is seen to be more ‘literalistic’ than literal, missing things like context, a proper understanding of the range of Hebrew words, genre of the text, and many details of the text itself. For example, expanding on an above point, how is it that in one 24-hour day, Adam worked the garden, examined all the animals to see if any would make a suitable helper, named them all, underwent an operation, and then said (in the Hebrew), “at long last” upon seeing Eve. I suppose the awe and love he must have felt gives him some poetic license there, but that seems to be stretching things a bit!

One of the primary problems with a progressive creation view is the idea of concordism. This is something both young earth and progressive creationists utilize, to the dismay of the theistic evolutionists. It is the idea that you could actually match up Scripture and science (or that they ‘concord’… exist in harmony). Theistic evolutionists do not generally see Genesis as historical or scientific in nature, so there would be no reason to try and ‘read into them’ these kind of ideas. They would say that Genesis is only meant to teach theological concepts, and the other groups are imposing this concordism onto the text. The reason this becomes a problem for progressive creationists, is: where does one stop? How much of what Scripture says is trying to be scientifically descriptive, and when is it, in fact, only making a theological point or simply anthropocentric language (from our human point of view, like sun-rise, sun-set). Another problem is that if progressive creationists tie too much of what is said by the Bible to science, then a discovery in science might cause major problems and embarrassment to the view (ex: the Galileo incident around heliocentricity… though this story is often gravely misrepresented). In my opinion, it isn’t a black and white divide. Most of the time, when we recount a story, we’re going to be including some science in our historical account. It won’t be text-book science, but it will reveal scientific details if considered carefully. This would be closer to what I see as going on in Genesis.

Theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism as some prefer) is a view that Genesis 1 teaches us nothing of scientific importance. The point is that God did it, not how. They will agree with the naturalistic evolutionist at many or all points, right up to the unknown cause behind everything; God. Essentially, evolution, even in the broadest sense of common descent and origin of life is good science; but God is somehow driving it (either directly, maybe through quantum mechanics, or though how it was ordered at the start; the design for it all to unfold was ‘baked in.’ In their view, this may be seen as a greater display of God’s power than the other views.). This view seems quite safe and is held by major popular scientists, such as Francis Collins. It allows concordism with just about everyone in the scientific world. At the point where they (science and faith) might disagree, science supposedly can’t reach anyway. The problems with this view are not so much that they miss something important the Bible has to say in Genesis; I agree with them that the main point of Genesis is theological, not scientific. However, by accepting much of what naturalistic science is saying about humanity, they might be missing something important Genesis has to tell us theologically (which might also inform our science). If you ask some theistic evolutionists about ‘the Fall’ and sin, and have theological training, you might be shocked at what you hear.

The theistic evolution view is easily the most commonly accepted view in scholarly and scientific circles today. I think it is so for a few reasons. 1) Many aren’t familiar with the detailed views of progressive creationism, so they don’t even consider it as an option. 2) Modern Biblical criticism has greatly undermined the idea of the historicity of Genesis 1-11. 3) It seems on the surface to be a very safe stance. (3)I don’t make these points lightly or to simply pick at theistic evolutionists. In talking to a good number of them (even experts who have written books on the subject), I find they do not know much about the option of progressive creationism, or if they do, they mischaracterize it. In many cases they have come from more of a ‘fundamentalist’ background, and when their ‘young earth’ views are challenged in the academy, they flip to the opposite extreme. I also find much of Higher Criticism, which has a great influence on this camp, to be overly skeptical. Most importantly, many have not carefully considered the theological implications of holding such a view. This is, of course, a stereotype. I have encountered exceptions.

One crucial point in the debate is the use of the Hebrew word ‘yom’, or day. Just like the English word, it has a broader range of meaning than 24-hour solar day. It can mean sunrise to sunset; a 24-hour day; the afternoon; an indefinite (but not infinite) period of time; reference to a range of time (the days of Noah); proper noun with an event (Yom Kippur – Day of Atonement), etc. This is further complicated by the fact that Hebrew has no other words to differentiate as we would in English (ie: day vs epoch). Hebrew vocabulary is quite limited, so you have to figure out meaning by context. Certainly that there was ‘evening and morning’ could push us towards the 24-hour view, if it were not for the literary, poetic nature, as well as the other problems with this view mentioned above. The point is, concerning day, a 24-hour day or a period-of-time day are both literal readings of the text.

There are a lot of difference between views on this topic and a great amount of complexity involved. However, it can all be boiled down to four basic categories which are not too hard to summarize. If you can do this, you can defuse a lot of the tension within the church. You might also be able to gain the ear of someone who has written off Christianity based on a false assumption. It is important to get some of the terminology down here, such as ‘evolution’ or ‘transitional form’. Hopefully, if you are interested in this topic, this article will be only the beginning for you. However, if not, at least by understanding the above, you will have many great opportunities to be a peacemaker.

Note: AiG (especially Ken Ham), sometimes seems uncharitable towards other organizations & Christians who do not share his/their view – in a manner which TilledSoil.org does not condone. Aside from this, as I listen to Ken Ham’s podcast, I catch him in basic exegetical mistakes (any seminary student would catch) and logic/critical thinking errors far too often. Even if he is correct about his YEC view, I do not feel he is a good representation of it. I’ve listed him because he is the most popular figure associated with the view. I’ve been told that some of the other AiG resources still justify this ministry overall, but I’d recommend Dr Jay Wile or CRI as resources.

2.

⇡

Another source which does a better job of addressing the theological implications is “Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution” by Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. Haarsma

3.

⇡

I don’t make these points lightly or to simply pick at theistic evolutionists. In talking to a good number of them (even experts who have written books on the subject), I find they do not know much about the option of progressive creationism, or if they do, they mischaracterize it. In many cases they have come from more of a ‘fundamentalist’ background, and when their ‘young earth’ views are challenged in the academy, they flip to the opposite extreme. I also find much of Higher Criticism, which has a great influence on this camp, to be overly skeptical. Most importantly, many have not carefully considered the theological implications of holding such a view. This is, of course, a stereotype. I have encountered exceptions.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/creation-vs-evolution-4-views/feed/3Interview with Michael Behehttp://www.tilledsoil.org/interview-with-michael-behe/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/interview-with-michael-behe/#respondFri, 31 Dec 2010 18:41:48 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=160Michael Behe has been a controversial figure, both within biological sciences, as well as within Christian apologetic circles. He is probably best known for his views on Irreducible Complexity in the area of intelligent design. If you have heard about him, positively or negatively, you might do well to hear some of his positions right from the man himself. This interview on Apologetics.com does a great job of getting to know a bit more about Michael as a person, his background, and his positions on many talked-about issues with which he has been associated. Apologetics.com – Interview with Dr. Michael Behe

Michael Behe has been a controversial figure, both within biological sciences, as well as within Christian apologetic circles. He is probably best known for his views on Irreducible Complexity in the area of intelligent design.

If you have heard about him, positively or negatively, you might do well to hear some of his positions right from the man himself. This interview on Apologetics.com does a great job of getting to know a bit more about Michael as a person, his background, and his positions on many talked-about issues with which he has been associated.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/merry-christmas/feed/0Dummies on Ethics?http://www.tilledsoil.org/dummies-on-ethics/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/dummies-on-ethics/#respondFri, 12 Nov 2010 07:04:55 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=140I probably know what you are thinking . . . after reading the title, you believe that I am not following my own apologetics tips. You probably also believe that I should start asking for forgiveness, even as I type. You may be correct on that last point as I could not help but be angered while listening to Friday’s Science Friday program with Ira Flatow. (1)“Science and Morality” – November 5, 2010 – http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201011055 – Guests: Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker – Host: Ira Flatow – (Listen in the upper-left under the header.) (righteous anger? I’ll let you decide) However, I want to ensure you that I AM NOT inferring that these people are dummies (as in, lack of intelligence). They are some of the smartest people on the planet. That is what is so scary about what they end up saying! The ‘Dummies’ image helps make two points about this discussion. First, that such a reductionist view ultimately turns us into dummies; living dummies, but certainly not real cognizant, moral beings. Second, it demonstrates how an error in worldview can drive a conversation between extremely smart people to embarrassingly poor conclusions. In this panel discussion, Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker, along with host Ira Flatow discuss the relationship between science and ethics or morality. The first problem that should be apparent (but may not be for many people) is the category error being committed here. Science is a description of what is, not what ought to be. It is kind of like consulting rocks as to what happiness is, or like listening to a show on the culinary arts by a panel of people from the Society of People Lacking Taste-buds. The basic idea being expressed is that ethics and morality come into being through the process of evolution, and that there is no need for anything but science to explain it, especially not religion. It was noted in the discussion that science can inform religion and faith, but that it is a one-way street. Faith has nothing to say to science. This becomes highly problematic and future articles on this site will delve into the details of why this is the case. What I mainly want you to recognize is that this is a prime example of where such a line of thinking leads. After a great deal of discussion, the consequences began to emerge. They say that humans are not responsible for their actions. As a society we might have to lock some people up to protect others, but we need to drop retributive justice. Sam Harris then made this telling comment: “It’s all basically a matter of brain tumors. We are not the author of our own causes. We don’t create our genomes, we don’t create our environments. And everyone on death row at this moment has either bad genes, bad parents, or bad ideas. They are not really responsible in the usual sense for any of them.” I was, quite frankly, shocked! No, it was not because I have not heard this kind of thing before. I have read books on the topic and have been involved in discussions on this topic. What surprised me is hearing this position so blatantly stated in such a public science medium. You don’t have to listen to Science Friday for too long to realize Ira Flatow is no friend of religion, but to assemble such a biased panel for such a discussion is a bold move. I know that in the general scientific community there is more balance, but this is a very popular public face of science. A couple of these people work quite intentionally in the area of interfacing the scientific community to the public and have received awards for doing so. They were also not shy in attacking the place of religion in the public square. Your assignment: Go listen to the show on Science Friday’s web site linked above. Listen carefully and look for the holes in their reasoning. How would you respond if you had been invited to the discussion? This is a good practice that I point out in my apologetic tips mentioned above. Listening directly to people you disagree with, understanding their arguments, and being able to respond is great training. Update: Friday, January 14, 2011 For a bit more reasonable discussion related to this topic, see The Evolving Minds Of Humans – Sci Fri – 11/12/2010 – Self Comes To Mind by neurologist Antonio Damasio. Dr. Damasio talks about the origin of consciousness from a materialistic evolutionary viewpoint. Of course, on this view consciousness would necessarily seem to precede morality, so this is taking a step back from the discussion referenced above. While an interesting discussion, I noted gaping holes in the steps Dr. Damasio presents to Ira during the interview. Maybe this was due to the limitations of such a radio program. I have purchased his book (2)Antonio Damasio. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2010) , and will be reviewing it here at some future point. Stay tuned . . . Notes [ + ] 1. ⇡ “Science and Morality” – November 5, 2010 – http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201011055 – Guests: Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker – Host: Ira Flatow – (Listen in the upper-left under the header.) 2. ⇡ Antonio Damasio. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2010)

I probably know what you are thinking . . . after reading the title, you believe that I am not following my own apologetics tips. You probably also believe that I should start asking for forgiveness, even as I type.

You may be correct on that last point as I could not help but be angered while listening to Friday’s Science Friday program with Ira Flatow. (1)“Science and Morality” – November 5, 2010 – http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201011055 – Guests: Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker – Host: Ira Flatow – (Listen in the upper-left under the header.) (righteous anger? I’ll let you decide) However, I want to ensure you that I AM NOT inferring that these people are dummies (as in, lack of intelligence). They are some of the smartest people on the planet. That is what is so scary about what they end up saying!

The ‘Dummies’ image helps make two points about this discussion. First, that such a reductionist view ultimately turns us into dummies; living dummies, but certainly not real cognizant, moral beings. Second, it demonstrates how an error in worldview can drive a conversation between extremely smart people to embarrassingly poor conclusions.

In this panel discussion, Lawrence Krauss, Simon Blackburn, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker, along with host Ira Flatow discuss the relationship between science and ethics or morality. The first problem that should be apparent (but may not be for many people) is the category error being committed here. Science is a description of what is, not what ought to be. It is kind of like consulting rocks as to what happiness is, or like listening to a show on the culinary arts by a panel of people from the Society of People Lacking Taste-buds.

The basic idea being expressed is that ethics and morality come into being through the process of evolution, and that there is no need for anything but science to explain it, especially not religion. It was noted in the discussion that science can inform religion and faith, but that it is a one-way street. Faith has nothing to say to science. This becomes highly problematic and future articles on this site will delve into the details of why this is the case.

What I mainly want you to recognize is that this is a prime example of where such a line of thinking leads. After a great deal of discussion, the consequences began to emerge. They say that humans are not responsible for their actions. As a society we might have to lock some people up to protect others, but we need to drop retributive justice.

Sam Harris then made this telling comment:

“It’s all basically a matter of brain tumors. We are not the author of our own causes. We don’t create our genomes, we don’t create our environments. And everyone on death row at this moment has either bad genes, bad parents, or bad ideas. They are not really responsible in the usual sense for any of them.”

I was, quite frankly, shocked! No, it was not because I have not heard this kind of thing before. I have read books on the topic and have been involved in discussions on this topic. What surprised me is hearing this position so blatantly stated in such a public science medium. You don’t have to listen to Science Friday for too long to realize Ira Flatow is no friend of religion, but to assemble such a biased panel for such a discussion is a bold move.

I know that in the general scientific community there is more balance, but this is a very popular public face of science. A couple of these people work quite intentionally in the area of interfacing the scientific community to the public and have received awards for doing so. They were also not shy in attacking the place of religion in the public square.

Your assignment:

Go listen to the show on Science Friday’s web site linked above. Listen carefully and look for the holes in their reasoning. How would you respond if you had been invited to the discussion? This is a good practice that I point out in my apologetic tips mentioned above. Listening directly to people you disagree with, understanding their arguments, and being able to respond is great training.

Update: Friday, January 14, 2011

For a bit more reasonable discussion related to this topic, see The Evolving Minds Of Humans – Sci Fri – 11/12/2010 – Self Comes To Mind by neurologist Antonio Damasio. Dr. Damasio talks about the origin of consciousness from a materialistic evolutionary viewpoint. Of course, on this view consciousness would necessarily seem to precede morality, so this is taking a step back from the discussion referenced above. While an interesting discussion, I noted gaping holes in the steps Dr. Damasio presents to Ira during the interview. Maybe this was due to the limitations of such a radio program. I have purchased his book (2)Antonio Damasio. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2010) , and will be reviewing it here at some future point. Stay tuned . . .

]]>Most Christians realize that the Bible is very important to the Christian faith. So much so, in fact, that this often leads to handling the Bible in some strange ways. For example, we might take a particular sentence (verse) and memorize it, yet use it out of context. There are sometimes strange views of how the Bible was produced (ie: dictation). Christians might venerate a physical Bible in the home, yet hardly ever crack it open and just read.

‘Just’ reading the Bible is an important practice that has, too often, been lost today, especially with all the technology we now have. I must admit that I have been guilty of this as well. I have participated in (and have taught) Bible studies where we examined a particular book or even a small chunk of text. Sometimes, we do a topical study where we’re grabbing verses or parts of verses from all over to make a point. I’m sure I’ve read the entire Bible at least a couple times over the years in class or through studying the individual books or various sections. However, up until recently, I have not made a great effort to simply read the Bible as a whole, trying to get familiar with it in an overall way.

Don’t get me wrong, I started on this many times over the years in various ways, but I seldom finished. It has been one of my big weaknesses and probably just a lack of discipline on my part.

Enter Technology

In many ways, technology has hurt us when it comes to reading our Bibles. Aside from the general distraction which technology makes so readily available, it also helps us abuse the text. We use our Bible software to search out that ‘proof-text’ passage when debating with someone on a theological point, or in our own study of some Biblical concept. We often miss the immediate context, let alone the ‘big picture’ context of it’s entirety. Or, we might search the Internet when studying a particular topic and come up with a bunch of advice, including a few Scriptural references, which fill little more purpose than to help us feel overly-confident we’ve found a good answer. And, while I can find a verse pretty fast in my Bible software, I seem to be getting slower at finding such a verse in a physical, paper Bible.

But, we can also use technology to assist our study. The Internet is a great resource for information, so long as we apply a critical mind to it and be careful of our sources. Using Bible software, we can now do complex searches that people before computers probably would have not even attempted, due to the vast amounts of time it would take to do them manually. But, technology, I have found, can also help in the basic task of Bible reading.

When I got my iPod Touch, I downloaded a couple Bible programs, since such a device is a great little pocket reader, and I love always having a Bible with me. Then I noticed the ‘Bible reading plan’ features and decided to give them a try. Bingo! I found what I needed as motivation. The software takes care of the reading plan. All I have to do is read, and it checks off my daily reading. If I miss a day or two, it is easy to read a bit more until I am caught back up. I’m now on my second pass through the entire Bible, which will conclude this winter. (1)Fifth pass now, as this article was originally written a few years ago. Going over and over through the Bible, even if it is only once through per year, starts to fill in a knowledge of the Biblical story as a whole. This provides critical context or a vantage point from which to see all the other passages when you are reading a book or even a few passages. I would highly recommend any Christian apologist adopt this kind of practice, whether it is using the technology, or simply using a paper Bible with one of the many available reading plans.

The software I have settled on as my favorite for reading plans (I like others for other purposes), is simply called Bible by YouVersion.com. It is available through the web site in a browser, as well as for a vast number of mobile platforms (ie: iPhone/iPad, Blackberry, palm WebOS, Android, Symbian, Java, etc.). The only thing I don’t like about it, is that you need an Internet connection to fully utilize the reading plans. That is a bummer for those of us with WiFi-only devices if we want to catch up on our reading when we’re away from WiFi networks. (2)It kind of works, but then you have to remember your progress until you are back in WiFi, as it tends to mess up the sync. You can read downloaded Bible translations off-line, the reading plan just doesn’t work well.

How does this help?

First, it simply helps with Biblical familiarity. You’ll start to commit more aspects to memory; maybe not word-for-word, as in memorization, but generally. You’ll become familiar with the various stories, their order and context, and will be less likely to be caught off-guard by some of the more surprising or controversial passages skeptics might bring up.

Second, you will tend to become more balanced, shedding certain aspects of theology and tradition. We all come to the Bible with some baggage, often introduced by community traditions, but sometimes also theological slants we make up ourselves based on our backgrounds and desires. As you read the Bible again and again, certain aspects of what we thought we knew will become odd, while others will be strengthened. We’ll develop a more Biblical worldview, rather than letting tradition or poor theology guide us.

Third, context… context… context! It is so easy to use a verse or fragment of a verse in a way it was never intended to be used. Building up the immediate and wider or ‘big picture’ context will help prevent this. Greg Koukl has an excellent presentation which drives this point home, “Never Read a Bible Verse.” Sure, you still need to add in study of disciplines like history and language, but basic context will help as much as anything.

Please join me in becoming more Biblically literate and encourage your friends to do the same!

Update: Wednesday, February 16, 2011

OliveTree has recently released a major update to BibleReader. Version 5 now has many improvement, including a better implementation of the reading plans. I’m not sure I like it quite as much as YouVersion’s yet, but it looks like it might allow for off-line reading of the plan, which would be very nice. Also, the NET Bible translation includes a demo set of its awesome footnotes, and the OliveTree implementation of the notes and multiple panes is quite nice. Be sure to check it out as well and see which you prefer.

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/importance-of-bible-reading/feed/2Ground Zero Mosque & Embarrassing ‘Christian’ Anticshttp://www.tilledsoil.org/ground-zero-mosque-embarrassing-christian-antics/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/ground-zero-mosque-embarrassing-christian-antics/#respondSat, 28 Aug 2010 04:56:19 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=48How should Christians be responding to plans to build a mosque at 'Ground Zero' in NYC? Certainly not the way they seem to be. Learn how Christians should respond and how our response affects Christian apologetics.

Over the years, my e-mail address has somehow found its way onto the lists of a whole bunch of political and Christian organizations, ranging from extreme ‘left’ to extreme ‘right’ in their views. Sometimes, browsing these can be amusing, but at other times, it just makes me mad.

This is what happened about three weeks ago (and in the last couple weeks) when I received e-mails from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) about the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ project in New York city. For the unfamiliar, ACLJ is an organization specializing in legal defense of U.S. Constitutional freedoms (especially religious), headed up by their Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow. You’ll often hear him on radio shows and advertisements on more conservative Christian radio. Many time, they do good work, providing legal balance against some of the wacky stuff the ACLU pulls and battling against abortion, etc.

I was quite shocked when I read the Ground Zero Mosque e-mail though. It says:

“But President Obama still doesn’t get it. When it comes to an Islamic mosque on the sacred site of Ground Zero, he’s out of step with the American people.”

I guess, in that case, I’m ‘out of step’ with the American people as well. And, it would seem, the American people are then out of step with the U.S. Constitution. One would think that one of the top legal experts on religious freedoms in the U.S. would understand this simple point. I get that he generally opposes Obama, but give me a break. When Obama is right, give him credit for it.

And, sacred site? For whom? If a Marxist died in the attacks, should no commercial enterprises be built there? If a Buddhist died in the attacks, should no Christian church be built near the site? Even if most of the people killed there were Christians, what does this have to do with it being ‘sacred’ and preventing a mosque from being close-by?

Then we get to this statement:

“This is NOT AN ISSUE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! The issue at hand is the construction of a mosque at this sacred site.”

Hmm, that certainly clears it up. Um, Jay.?.? And:

“We’re sending a POWERFUL message to President Obama: The site at Ground Zero is hallowed ground – and NOT the place to build a mosque.”

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. ACLJ is asking us to use political clout and money, to force President Obama to use any power he might have, to deny Muslims their Constitutional rights. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

So, yesterday, I get another e-mail from ACLJ saying:

“This is not a religious freedom issue …

This is not a political issue …

IT’S AN AMERICAN ISSUE. Your voice – combined with millions of others – has made this debate the #1 news story in America.”

And that is REALLY sad, and REALLY scary in my opinion. Then ACLJ goes on to list a whole list of ‘enemies’ of the ‘Christian Right’ that are in support of the mosque project, and then refers to Obama again:

“But he’s also ignoring the will of the American people…”

And, I hope he continues to do so, as long as that WILL is unconstitutional! Just like I hope Roe v Wade gets overturned as unconstitutional, no matter what the WILL of the people is, or like I would have supported overturning slavery, no matter what the WILL of the people was at the time. And, I hope one day, a president will go against the WILL of the people if they decide not to let me build a Christian church somewhere in America.

On August 4th, I wrote the following as part of an e-mail response to ACLJ:

“As a Christian apologist, I see this as not only embarrassing, but destructive to the Christian message. Denying religious liberties has typically been a ‘black mark’ on Islam (at least to a modern Western audience). Now, it seems, that when on Christian turf (questionably these days), ‘Christians’ will pull the same tactics on the Muslims if they can get the chance. Shameful! What a set-back to Christian apologetics.”

Ok, enough of the rant; on to some apologetics training.

First, when doing apologetics, we want to treat the people we disagree with in a fair manner. When ACLJ and other Christians act like this, it becomes an anti-apologetic to the Christian message. Apologists to Muslims have a hard enough job as it is. (And, shouldn’t every Christian treat their neighbor fairly anyway?)

But, second, when we see our Christian brothers and sisters acting in non-Christian ways, we need to stand against them in that action, and stand for what is right. This gets hard to do, especially when honor, emotions, money, and power are involved. Consider what is currently going on concerning Ergun Caner (and the famous apologists who have jumped to his defense), apparently involving tall-tales, lies, and cover-ups, which damage Christian witness to Muslims. (1)Click the link above or see: “A Sampling of Ergun Caner’s Myths” – 07/21/2010 – James White – http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4084 As Christians, we can’t just overlook this kind of stuff because these people are ‘in our camp’.

Third, are Christians really so scared and unsure of the reliability of the Christian Gospel message, that they feel the need to resort to political power to force Christianity in (or push other religious out)? Historically, Christians do not have a very good track record with THAT method of ‘evangelism’. I think we’re much better off sticking with Jesus’ method of making disciples. Just think, if only half of the money that is probably being put into the legal defense against this mosque project, where instead put into a program to train Christians about Islam so they could effectively witness to Muslims, how much could be accomplished!

Fourth, we need to be careful about what we are REALLY saying through an action like opposing this mosque. As Dr. John Stackhouse points out at his blog:

“Either we think all Muslims are somehow implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or we don’t.

If all Muslims are thus implicated, then of course they shouldn’t be allowed to build near Ground Zero. Nor should they be allowed to build near anything else that matters to the rest of us. In fact, they should all be rounded up and exiled as the clear and present dangers that they are.

If we don’t think all Muslims are implicated in the attack, then of course they should be allowed to build a mosque or community centre or whatever the heck they want to build wherever the zoning and funding will allow—just like any other citizens.” (2)Click the link above or see: “Ground Zero Mosque: It’s a Simple Question” – Dr. John G. Stackhouse Jr. – August 17, 2010 – http://stackblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-mosque-its-a-simple-question/

Christians certainly aren’t perfect. We’re fallible humans. Yet, we need to at least be trying to think these things through and act like Christians. When we make mistakes (especially those which do direct damage to Christian ministry), we need to admit our failure and apologize. I could understand little isolated groups of Christians doing this kind of thing, but the scale of this leaves me in amazement. That I haven’t heard more push-back from other Christians leaves me saddened. Please join me in acting like a Christian towards Muslims (or anyone else we encounter), and holding our Christian brothers and sisters accountable to do the same.

Update: Tuesday, August 31, 2010

I received another e-mail from ACLJ today. This time, they are making a fuss about public funding:

“backers of the Ground Zero mosque are pushing for taxpayer funding to finance the $100 million project. . . . Make no mistake, this is nothing short of a double standard – your church would not be legally allowed to use tax-free bonds.”

“Tax laws allow such funding for religiously affiliated non-profits if they can prove the facility will benefit the general public and their religious activities are funded separately.”

So, yes, if your church met the criteria (most churches probably wouldn’t, but then, neither would most mosques), it could get that kind of funding. Apparently, Jay Sekulow believes his supporters are too lazy to do a bit more research. Beware folks, even supposedly ‘Christian’ organizations aren’t above trying to deceive you to win your support.

Update: Wednesday, March 16, 2011

It seems they just won’t give up. I got another e-mail today (I’ve gotten several between my last update and now) talking about the progress in court. It seems the argument has now boiled down to: a) NYC didn’t give the site ‘landmark protection status.’ and b) “An Islamic victory mosque at Ground Zero would be a political statement supporting those attacks on our American values.”

As for A, granting that I don’t live in NYC or understand that area fully, I’m not sure why it would be granted landmark status, other than to put a roadblock in the path of the mosque location. It isn’t even at ‘ground zero’ but blocks away. Maybe it has become common practice to just use any legal loophole to get one’s way, but this certainly doesn’t seem very Christian to me .

For B, allowing Muslims to build their mosque would be a victory in principle showing that our ‘American Values’ actually mean something other than being a political propaganda toy! When we say freedom of religion, we actually mean it. We can show Muslims around the world that Christianity is religion strong enough to allow freedom of the mind and of religion, and still stand firm on its own.

Rather than silly stunts like ACLJ is promoting, may I urge instead that you get a good translation of the Quran (a free PDF version recommended by Dr. James White of aomin.org) and a good Bible translation (such as NASB), and do some reading. This way, you will not only be prepared to talk to Muslims, but also better know Christianity. The worldview ‘battle’ is not ultimately won in the courts, but in the mind!

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/ground-zero-mosque-embarrassing-christian-antics/feed/0Evolution: understanding the termhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/evolution-understanding-the-term/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/evolution-understanding-the-term/#respondFri, 13 Aug 2010 03:49:07 +0000http://www.tilledsoil.org/?p=37In the coming weeks, I will be posting a blog which should be very helpful to people struggling with the issue of creation vs evolution. However, as a background to that article, we first need to take a look at some of the terms used in the discussion. We will begin with the word evolution itself. Definition of Evolution It is important to realize that people can mean different things by the term ‘evolution’. I find that people are often talking past each other in discussions when using this term. It is important, then, to get everyone on the same page so they can truly get to the core of agreement or disagreement. evolution (#1) – change over time – We use this inside and outside of science. For example, the way school is taught has evolved over the years. In science, this can be applied to biology. We certainly know biological organisms change over time as well as through generations. Think of basic biology experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, etc. I think everyone accepts this definition and understanding of evolution (or at least should). evolution (#2) – micro or special – Small changes between generations of living things, where some changes will likely be advantageous to an organism and be passed on through generations. In other words, natural selection or some derivative of the concept. Some might dispute whether a species (1)another ambiguous term jump can happen here, but I think micro evolution is (and should be) generally accepted. Most of us have heard about the finch beaks Darwin observed, or we might think of something like dog breeding. Though forced by humans, there is a similar effect. In the end, it is still a dog, but the changes can be quite remarkable. evolution (#3) – macro or general – That micro or special evolution, over long time periods, can account for the diversity of life we see. (2)Origin of life is really a separate issue, though sometimes called chemical evolution. Common descent or Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) language is often used. This is where the most of the disagreement comes in (or, where it should come in). When scientists chide people for not accepting evolution as a fact, they are talking about evolution #1 and probably #2. However, they are also often brining an assumption of #3 along with that. When Christians reject evolution, they should probably be rejecting only #3, if any at all. There are some Christians who would accept #3. If we simply lump all three definitions together and accept or reject them in whole, the scientist is going to think the Christian who rejects evolution to be simple-minded or worse. On the other hand, the Christian who is wary of #3 is going to see the scientist who accepts evolution as up to no good; trying to smuggle their worldview in with their science. And, unfortunately, both are often the case. If we understand these definitions, we can ask the right questions when we are in conversation to be certain we know what the other person means by ‘evolution’. We can then decide on how many things we agree, and talk about the areas where we disagree. Doing so might not bring agreement and resolution, but should bring understanding and generate mutual respect. This is something desperately needed from both sides in this debate! Notes [ + ] 1. ⇡ another ambiguous term 2. ⇡ Origin of life is really a separate issue, though sometimes called chemical evolution.

In the coming weeks, I will be posting a blog which should be very helpful to people struggling with the issue of creation vs evolution. However, as a background to that article, we first need to take a look at some of the terms used in the discussion. We will begin with the word evolution itself.

Definition of Evolution

It is important to realize that people can mean different things by the term ‘evolution’. I find that people are often talking past each other in discussions when using this term. It is important, then, to get everyone on the same page so they can truly get to the core of agreement or disagreement.evolution (#1) – change over time – We use this inside and outside of science. For example, the way school is taught has evolved over the years. In science, this can be applied to biology. We certainly know biological organisms change over time as well as through generations. Think of basic biology experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, etc. I think everyone accepts this definition and understanding of evolution (or at least should).

evolution (#2) – micro or special – Small changes between generations of living things, where some changes will likely be advantageous to an organism and be passed on through generations. In other words, natural selection or some derivative of the concept. Some might dispute whether a species (1)another ambiguous term jump can happen here, but I think micro evolution is (and should be) generally accepted. Most of us have heard about the finch beaks Darwin observed, or we might think of something like dog breeding. Though forced by humans, there is a similar effect. In the end, it is still a dog, but the changes can be quite remarkable.

evolution (#3) – macro or general – That micro or special evolution, over long time periods, can account for the diversity of life we see. (2)Origin of life is really a separate issue, though sometimes called chemical evolution. Common descent or Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) language is often used. This is where the most of the disagreement comes in (or, where it should come in).

When scientists chide people for not accepting evolution as a fact, they are talking about evolution #1 and probably #2. However, they are also often brining an assumption of #3 along with that. When Christians reject evolution, they should probably be rejecting only #3, if any at all. There are some Christians who would accept #3.

If we simply lump all three definitions together and accept or reject them in whole, the scientist is going to think the Christian who rejects evolution to be simple-minded or worse. On the other hand, the Christian who is wary of #3 is going to see the scientist who accepts evolution as up to no good; trying to smuggle their worldview in with their science. And, unfortunately, both are often the case.

If we understand these definitions, we can ask the right questions when we are in conversation to be certain we know what the other person means by ‘evolution’. We can then decide on how many things we agree, and talk about the areas where we disagree. Doing so might not bring agreement and resolution, but should bring understanding and generate mutual respect. This is something desperately needed from both sides in this debate!

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/evolution-understanding-the-term/feed/0Apologetics – Application, Tips, & Dangershttp://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-application-tips-dangers/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-application-tips-dangers/#respondSat, 06 Feb 2010 23:12:08 +0000http://www.cgwerks.com/apologetics/?p=14Apologetics is kind of like a tool. It can be used properly or improperly. Think of a hammer. You can use it to pound nails into lumber, or you could hit someone with it. Proper use is use out of love for our neighbor, not to beat them up or to win. We live in a world today where Christianity is not ‘simply accepted’ by the majority. People will not be coming from a position of accepting Christianity until they feel they have found too many flaws in other worldviews. They will, instead, be skeptical unless they are given a good reason to believe. This makes apologetics crucial. Francis Schaeffer famously referred to it as ‘pre-evangelism’. Here are some tips: Build relationships. This can’t be emphasized enough. While there are times when apologetics will take on other formats (academic debate, group discussion, Internet forum debate, etc.) most of the hard work is done through relationships built on trust. A great example of this is Gary Habermas’s friendship over the years with Anthony Flew (the famous atheist). For a very interesting apologetics story, look that up. Be willing to listen. You need to understand where the other person is coming from and what they are saying. If you do not, you are simply spouting or preaching. Think of how you respond when someone of another religion or worldview unloads their view on you without considering your concerns. Be ready to admit where Christianity has gone wrong, and apologize for it. (No, this isn’t what apologetics is, contrary to what some think when they hear the term, but it might be a good reminder of this point.) Get your terms and definitions clarified. Otherwise you will just be talking past each other. When you do correct some point, do so out of love, gently and humbly. Style is important – Try to refrain from stating your position as something that only a fool would not agree with. But, present your case with confidence in what you believe to be true. After all, would you believe it if you didn’t believe it to be the case? Hopefully not, and hopefully the person you are talking to can appreciate this. They likely believe their position to be true as well. Just be aware that there is a line that is too often crossed between confident (while humble) and arrogant. Intellectual integrity is critical. When you don’t know, say so. Do your research. Don’t overstate things. Above all… DON’T CHEAT (One would think this would be obvious for Christians, but I catch Christian apologists doing it all the time. Just because our opponents do it, doesn’t mean we should.) Read your opposition – I can’t stress this one enough, and it goes along with intellectual integrity above. How can you respond or critique something you don’t understand? Of course we’re all going to be guilty of not understanding our opposition fully. We can’t be a specialist in everything. But, we should try our best to understand as much as we are able. Here are some dangers: Dealing with skepticism and doubt all the time can rub off. Be sure to realize God is in control. Read Revelation… we know how the story ends. Be involved in a church community. Be aware of cynicism and pessimism. Watch out for people who just want to argue (while being aware of 3rd parties). There are some people who are just ‘baiting’ and looking for arguments. It doesn’t really matter what you say to these people, they aren’t really listening. You can usually tell after a couple exchanges. However, if you have a listening audience, it can be worth engaging these people for the benefit of that audience. At that point, being civil and gracious (especially when contrasted to this other person) will clearly register with those 3rd parties. Watch out for urban legends. Check out your sources and details. Many Christian apologists have fallen for stuff like “Evidence for Joshua’s Long Day,” which was a set-up, or things like ‘Dino and Human footprints together’ type stories. I’ve seen the later even used by some pretty major ministries. Prosperity gospel – Don’t make arguments that by becoming a Christian, your life will improve. It certainly might in some aspects, but the Bible usually talks about how much more difficult life will now become BECAUSE you are a Christian. Good things will follow, but trying to build a 1:1 case, or that Christianity provides ‘the good life’ will always backfire eventually. Experiential arguments – Most people are not going to change their deeply held convictions or worldview based on the experiences of another person. Think about this for a second. Would not the advocates of just about any religion make such claims? When the Mormon presents their ‘burning in the bosom’ case, do you as a Christian convert? Why should they convert for your story? I’m not saying do not present your story. Stories can be powerful under the right conditions, and possibly foundational for our own personal faith. But, they should not be your primary mode of evangelism. People should believe Christianity because it is true, not because you do. Hopefully these tips are helpful and will prepare you in communicating the ‘meat’ of apologetics, presented in other posts here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, you will find that I will often fail in many of the above points. When you see me doing so, please don’t be afraid to call me out on it in the comments (just try to do it nicely please).

Apologetics is kind of like a tool. It can be used properly or improperly. Think of a hammer. You can use it to pound nails into lumber, or you could hit someone with it. Proper use is use out of love for our neighbor, not to beat them up or to win.

We live in a world today where Christianity is not ‘simply accepted’ by the majority. People will not be coming from a position of accepting Christianity until they feel they have found too many flaws in other worldviews. They will, instead, be skeptical unless they are given a good reason to believe. This makes apologetics crucial. Francis Schaeffer famously referred to it as ‘pre-evangelism’.

Here are some tips:

Build relationships. This can’t be emphasized enough. While there are times when apologetics will take on other formats (academic debate, group discussion, Internet forum debate, etc.) most of the hard work is done through relationships built on trust. A great example of this is Gary Habermas’s friendship over the years with Anthony Flew (the famous atheist). For a very interesting apologetics story, look that up.

Be willing to listen. You need to understand where the other person is coming from and what they are saying. If you do not, you are simply spouting or preaching. Think of how you respond when someone of another religion or worldview unloads their view on you without considering your concerns.

Be ready to admit where Christianity has gone wrong, and apologize for it. (No, this isn’t what apologetics is, contrary to what some think when they hear the term, but it might be a good reminder of this point.)

Get your terms and definitions clarified. Otherwise you will just be talking past each other.

When you do correct some point, do so out of love, gently and humbly.

Style is important – Try to refrain from stating your position as something that only a fool would not agree with. But, present your case with confidence in what you believe to be true. After all, would you believe it if you didn’t believe it to be the case? Hopefully not, and hopefully the person you are talking to can appreciate this. They likely believe their position to be true as well. Just be aware that there is a line that is too often crossed between confident (while humble) and arrogant.

Intellectual integrity is critical. When you don’t know, say so. Do your research. Don’t overstate things. Above all… DON’T CHEAT (One would think this would be obvious for Christians, but I catch Christian apologists doing it all the time. Just because our opponents do it, doesn’t mean we should.)

Read your opposition – I can’t stress this one enough, and it goes along with intellectual integrity above. How can you respond or critique something you don’t understand? Of course we’re all going to be guilty of not understanding our opposition fully. We can’t be a specialist in everything. But, we should try our best to understand as much as we are able.

Here are some dangers:

Dealing with skepticism and doubt all the time can rub off. Be sure to realize God is in control. Read Revelation… we know how the story ends. Be involved in a church community. Be aware of cynicism and pessimism.

Watch out for people who just want to argue (while being aware of 3rd parties). There are some people who are just ‘baiting’ and looking for arguments. It doesn’t really matter what you say to these people, they aren’t really listening. You can usually tell after a couple exchanges. However, if you have a listening audience, it can be worth engaging these people for the benefit of that audience. At that point, being civil and gracious (especially when contrasted to this other person) will clearly register with those 3rd parties.

Watch out for urban legends. Check out your sources and details. Many Christian apologists have fallen for stuff like “Evidence for Joshua’s Long Day,” which was a set-up, or things like ‘Dino and Human footprints together’ type stories. I’ve seen the later even used by some pretty major ministries.

Prosperity gospel – Don’t make arguments that by becoming a Christian, your life will improve. It certainly might in some aspects, but the Bible usually talks about how much more difficult life will now become BECAUSE you are a Christian. Good things will follow, but trying to build a 1:1 case, or that Christianity provides ‘the good life’ will always backfire eventually.

Experiential arguments – Most people are not going to change their deeply held convictions or worldview based on the experiences of another person. Think about this for a second. Would not the advocates of just about any religion make such claims? When the Mormon presents their ‘burning in the bosom’ case, do you as a Christian convert? Why should they convert for your story? I’m not saying do not present your story. Stories can be powerful under the right conditions, and possibly foundational for our own personal faith. But, they should not be your primary mode of evangelism. People should believe Christianity because it is true, not because you do.

Hopefully these tips are helpful and will prepare you in communicating the ‘meat’ of apologetics, presented in other posts here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, you will find that I will often fail in many of the above points. When you see me doing so, please don’t be afraid to call me out on it in the comments (just try to do it nicely please).

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/apologetics-application-tips-dangers/feed/0Faith – part IIhttp://www.tilledsoil.org/faith-part-ii/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/faith-part-ii/#respondWed, 08 Jul 2009 07:05:58 +0000http://www.cgwerks.com/apologetics/?p=10Since the previous post on faith I did a bit more digging. First, the word faith – remember, faith is an English word translated from the Greek = pistis from peitho (persuade) – means trust of that which I am persuaded to believe is true or real. The root of pistis is peitho, which is defined by Strong’s Greek Dictionary as: to convince; to pacify or conciliate; to assent; or to rely (by inward certainty). Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines peitho as: 1) to persuade; 2) to be persuaded; 3) to trust, to have confidence, or to be confident. Easton’s Bible Dictionary gives the following definition: “Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.” Now, let us look at how Scripture itself defines faith. Heb. 11:1 Now faith is the assurance (hupostasis = ‘a support, substance, steadiness, confidence’) of things hoped for, the conviction (elegchos = ‘a proof, test, conviction’) of things not seen. (NASB) I especially like how Eugene Peterson put it in The Message paraphrase: Heb. 11:1 “The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see.” A couple of other verses to consider: John 10:37-38 “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (NASB) Jesus was not above giving evidence to back up his claims. Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB) It seems Luke could have more easily just have told Theophilus, just believe! Notice that Luke is interested in the facts and details. Acts 17:11 “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (NASB) The Bereans more noble for testing what they received. 1Th. 5:21 “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;” (NASB) All of this should pretty much do away with the ‘just believe’ mentality which comes out of some Christian circles. We certainly need to guard against becoming overly skeptical, but God wants us to build our faith on a firm foundation. But, what about the skeptic who says, “sure, I understand what you are saying about faith… but that is just the problem… there is no foundation you are speaking of. It IS just wishful thinking.”? To answer this charge is what the discipline of Apologetics is all about. 1Pet. 3:15 ” … but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence …” (NASB) [emphasis added, mine]

First, the word faith – remember, faith is an English word translated from the Greek = pistis from peitho (persuade) – means trust of that which I am persuaded to believe is true or real.

The root of pistis is peitho, which is defined by Strong’s Greek Dictionary as: to convince; to pacify or conciliate; to assent; or to rely (by inward certainty). Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines peitho as: 1) to persuade; 2) to be persuaded; 3) to trust, to have confidence, or to be confident.

Easton’s Bible Dictionary gives the following definition: “Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.”

I especially like how Eugene Peterson put it in The Message paraphrase:

Heb. 11:1 “The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see.”

A couple of other verses to consider:

John 10:37-38 “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” (NASB)

Jesus was not above giving evidence to back up his claims.

Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB)

It seems Luke could have more easily just have told Theophilus, just believe! Notice that Luke is interested in the facts and details.

Acts 17:11 “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (NASB)

All of this should pretty much do away with the ‘just believe’ mentality which comes out of some Christian circles. We certainly need to guard against becoming overly skeptical, but God wants us to build our faith on a firm foundation.

But, what about the skeptic who says, “sure, I understand what you are saying about faith… but that is just the problem… there is no foundation you are speaking of. It IS just wishful thinking.”? To answer this charge is what the discipline of Apologetics is all about.

1Pet. 3:15 ” … but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence …” (NASB) [emphasis added, mine]

]]>http://www.tilledsoil.org/faith-part-ii/feed/0Faith…. ‘wishful thinking’?http://www.tilledsoil.org/faith-wishful-thinking/
http://www.tilledsoil.org/faith-wishful-thinking/#commentsSat, 26 Jan 2008 20:56:08 +0000http://www.cgwerks.com/apologetics/?p=4I often hear people talk about faith as if it is ‘wishful thinking’. This is especially true in the ‘science vs. religion’ debates. “I have my reason…. you have your faith…” is the general sentiment. I have even heard Christians use a similar way of speaking. In some circles, there seems to be an attitude that you should ‘just believe’ and not question anything. These views of ‘faith’ are a misunderstanding of epistemology (how we know what we know… what separates a justified belief from simple opinion) on one side, and what the Bible teaches on the other. The assumption from non-believers is that faith has no foundation. The assumption from some Christians is that the Bible teaches us to ‘just believe’ and that searching for reinforcement of our beliefs is some kind of sinful doubting. Faith, though… whether in religion or secular… is a very similar thing. If I decide to fly to Chicago tomorrow, I’d go to an airport and travel in a jet. I don’t know for certain that gravity will work the same way tomorrow, and the jet will get to its destination (baring other things which could go wrong). However, I am reasonably confident in what science has discovered about the nature of gravity and its consistency. I am also reasonably confident in flight safety records. My chances of a safe flight are extremely good. If this were not the case, I wouldn’t have so much ‘faith’ in the whole process and would walk or drive. In this use of ‘faith’, everyone can see what I mean. It is a trust or confidence in what I do know, even if I might have fears, doubts, and lets face it… in this case, some uncertainty. There is no full guarantee or promise that I will absolutely get there; nor can I prove it before I leave! It is, a leap of faith. Christian faith is similar in many ways. I can’t put it all in a set of test-tubes and beakers in a lab and test it. I can’t, in some complete way, prove it to you. But what, when you think about it, can you ultimately do this with? The set of things is pretty limited. I can’t prove my senses are 100% accurate, though without them, life would be incredibly uncertain. I can’t prove my wife loves me in a ‘naturalistic scientific’ way. There is no lab test for that kind of thing…. any such tests would depend on things we already suppose we know about the way things work. Christian faith is based on trust in what God has done for us, and will do for us. This is based on our relationship with God, God’s revelation to us, history, science (yes, I said science… more on this in another post), and experience. It may or may not be something I can ‘prove’ to you (depending on what prove means to you), but it is certainly NOT wishful thinking. Faith is essentially trust. We trust things based on many criteria. Just like the factors involved in my jet flight, or my wife’s love for me, some of these criteria can be ‘proven’ to various degrees, and some are harder to measure. We do this all the time, every day of our lives. Christian faith is really no different. How faith differs from belief, is that we are confident enough in it to put it into action. I might reasonably believe the jet will get me to my destination safely, but until I climb aboard, it doesn’t really become faith. Christians believe in the promises of God in Christ, and then exercise faith by putting their lives (and souls) in Christ’s hands.

I often hear people talk about faith as if it is ‘wishful thinking’. This is especially true in the ‘science vs. religion’ debates. “I have my reason…. you have your faith…” is the general sentiment. I have even heard Christians use a similar way of speaking. In some circles, there seems to be an attitude that you should ‘just believe’ and not question anything.

These views of ‘faith’ are a misunderstanding of epistemology (how we know what we know… what separates a justified belief from simple opinion) on one side, and what the Bible teaches on the other. The assumption from non-believers is that faith has no foundation. The assumption from some Christians is that the Bible teaches us to ‘just believe’ and that searching for reinforcement of our beliefs is some kind of sinful doubting.
Faith, though… whether in religion or secular… is a very similar thing. If I decide to fly to Chicago tomorrow, I’d go to an airport and travel in a jet. I don’t know for certain that gravity will work the same way tomorrow, and the jet will get to its destination (baring other things which could go wrong). However, I am reasonably confident in what science has discovered about the nature of gravity and its consistency. I am also reasonably confident in flight safety records. My chances of a safe flight are extremely good. If this were not the case, I wouldn’t have so much ‘faith’ in the whole process and would walk or drive.

In this use of ‘faith’, everyone can see what I mean. It is a trust or confidence in what I do know, even if I might have fears, doubts, and lets face it… in this case, some uncertainty. There is no full guarantee or promise that I will absolutely get there; nor can I prove it before I leave! It is, a leap of faith.

Christian faith is similar in many ways. I can’t put it all in a set of test-tubes and beakers in a lab and test it. I can’t, in some complete way, prove it to you. But what, when you think about it, can you ultimately do this with? The set of things is pretty limited. I can’t prove my senses are 100% accurate, though without them, life would be incredibly uncertain. I can’t prove my wife loves me in a ‘naturalistic scientific’ way. There is no lab test for that kind of thing…. any such tests would depend on things we already suppose we know about the way things work.

Christian faith is based on trust in what God has done for us, and will do for us. This is based on our relationship with God, God’s revelation to us, history, science (yes, I said science… more on this in another post), and experience. It may or may not be something I can ‘prove’ to you (depending on what prove means to you), but it is certainly NOT wishful thinking.

Faith is essentially trust. We trust things based on many criteria. Just like the factors involved in my jet flight, or my wife’s love for me, some of these criteria can be ‘proven’ to various degrees, and some are harder to measure. We do this all the time, every day of our lives. Christian faith is really no different. How faith differs from belief, is that we are confident enough in it to put it into action. I might reasonably believe the jet will get me to my destination safely, but until I climb aboard, it doesn’t really become faith. Christians believe in the promises of God in Christ, and then exercise faith by putting their lives (and souls) in Christ’s hands.